Clark Institute of Aviation
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Area 51
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...it seems you have some contacts in CAAP
Well, when one has to renew license(s) every few months or so one can't help developing contacts.
.. is there any chance to know if the certificate will be valid (and accepted) outside of the
Philippines?
In my opinion, ICAO made a mistake when it restricted the MPL to the sponsoring operators customised SOPs instead of the manufacturer's published procedures, as seen in the (A320) FCOM Volume 3.03.00, and, therefore, closing the door to the students that would like a generic Type Rating that would enable them to be employed by any airline.
As a matter of fact, most operators use the manufacturer's FCOM in the cockpit. Only very few have a suplementary folder containing small procedural changes to the original. Food for thought....
Is it so difficult for ICAO to change this ruling?
As a matter of fact, most operators use the manufacturer's FCOM in the cockpit. Only very few have a suplementary folder containing small procedural changes to the original. Food for thought....
Is it so difficult for ICAO to change this ruling?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would disagree, traveller, that ICAO made a mistake in limiting the MPL to the sponsoring airline’s SOPs. I think, in its infancy, this was a very wise thing to do. An SOP is to an extent the airline’s bible. It is a set of procedures that every employee must go by without compromise. And it is a set of procedures that have been refined from the manufacturers SOPs that is tailored towards the airline. This is why there can not be and never will be a generic SOP – ICAO would never advocate it and no airline would ever accept it. An extreme example may be an SOP where a specific airline does not allow the deployment of speed brakes at a certain altitude/speed in case it wakes up their business-class passengers!
Anyway I digress. The point is that an MPL is so fundamentally different to the tried-and-tested fATPL route that airlines (especially the legacy carriers with deep-routed training cultures and procedures) needed to have the guarantee that if they were to take on an MPL cadet, they would receive a ready made pilot who required no training and knew how to operate everything in the cockpit and in the right order.
We could argue for ever as to the benefits of flying 150 hours in a Cessna 152 if the aim of the pilot is to fly 747s. What do they really learn in those 100 hours of flight experience? Surely 50 hours in the flight simulator of an A320 is more beneficial than flying 100 hours at 2000 feet in a Cessna. Anyway obviously ICAO and the bean-counters (accountants) at airlines thought it wasn’t that important and hence the MPL was born – a new age flight training course that would take a novice to the R.H.S of an aircraft with the majority of time spent in the simulator of the aircraft they will fly. This is the biggest advantage of the MPL and cheaper!
However, there is one major disadvantage to this. You can ONLY fly that aircraft on an MPL. You are not training to be a pilot. You are training to be an airline pilot and those two entities are entirely different. An MPL does not allow you the freedom that a fATPL does. The first MPL did not even allow you to fly solo in a Cessna! So the very simple logic means that CURRENTLY, an MPL cadet MUST have a guaranteed job at the end of training of the licence is useless because you can not do anything with it.
The biggest mistake ICAO made was not ensuring that there should be very stringent rules that FTOs must not adopt an MPL course without the cadets having guaranteed employment – or at least the guarantee of ending up in the holding pool of an airline (obviously you can not eliminate the risk of not getting a job immediately).
I believe it was immoral for Alpha Aviation to embark on this project without global recognition of a generic SOP/MPL. This is why there are well-founded accusations that Alpha Aviation saw the Philippines as an easy prey because this would never happen in Europe. There have been 3 MPL schemes in Europe so far. The very first was the Danish MPL that had cadets sponsored by the airline (which then went bust). FTE and Oxford are currently partnered with FlyBe. So all schemes are airline sponsored. All cadets will at least end up in the holding pool at their own risk that they may not be given a job – but this is a risk all cadet pilots take regardless of licence. Also, the Flybe MPL schemes have an in-built guarantee that if anything goes wrong with the MPL, they will fund the conversion of cadets to CPL ME/IR.
Alpha and CIA have no such guarantee.
CIA is NOT a scam. But I do believe, from the evidence, that they know they are jumping the gun. They have a lucrative business that they could never get away with in Europe. Where is my proof? Well the fact that they are not in the UK. Out of all the countries in the world, why the Philippines? Why use that country as a starting point? When I look at the big picture, not just an a/c that has gone tech, I smell something that goes right to the very top of CAAP and the government. Maybe Philippines wants to establish itself as the main airline pilot training centre in Asia? Perhaps the country wants to position itself before another country gets the accolade?
Now these are not bad reasons, of course not. I encourage anything that gets the Philippines the investment and recognition it deserves. But just like 99.9% of “good intentions” in the Philippines, there is usually only one winner and it is never the people. Congratulations to all the sponsored cadets who have now finished the MPL and are flying with Cebu (are they yet) but I expected nothing less.
My main concern is the non-sponsored cadets. The Global Airline Community will not change overnight. A generic MPL will not be accepted or absorbed in 1, 2 or 3 years at least. So the non-sponsored cadets have only one choice which is to transfer onto a fATPL. What other options are there? Non-sponsored MPL cadets graduating in the next few years will not be able to build hours while they wait for a job which can only be for Cebu Pacific. And what happens if that non-sponsored MPL cadet fails the interview for Cebu pacific?
If a generic MPL is accepted globally in 5 years time (which I doubt), then you can be 100% sure that there will be a whole host of new rules and regulation rendering any MPL cadet training from 2007 onwards obsolete.
Anyway I digress. The point is that an MPL is so fundamentally different to the tried-and-tested fATPL route that airlines (especially the legacy carriers with deep-routed training cultures and procedures) needed to have the guarantee that if they were to take on an MPL cadet, they would receive a ready made pilot who required no training and knew how to operate everything in the cockpit and in the right order.
We could argue for ever as to the benefits of flying 150 hours in a Cessna 152 if the aim of the pilot is to fly 747s. What do they really learn in those 100 hours of flight experience? Surely 50 hours in the flight simulator of an A320 is more beneficial than flying 100 hours at 2000 feet in a Cessna. Anyway obviously ICAO and the bean-counters (accountants) at airlines thought it wasn’t that important and hence the MPL was born – a new age flight training course that would take a novice to the R.H.S of an aircraft with the majority of time spent in the simulator of the aircraft they will fly. This is the biggest advantage of the MPL and cheaper!
However, there is one major disadvantage to this. You can ONLY fly that aircraft on an MPL. You are not training to be a pilot. You are training to be an airline pilot and those two entities are entirely different. An MPL does not allow you the freedom that a fATPL does. The first MPL did not even allow you to fly solo in a Cessna! So the very simple logic means that CURRENTLY, an MPL cadet MUST have a guaranteed job at the end of training of the licence is useless because you can not do anything with it.
The biggest mistake ICAO made was not ensuring that there should be very stringent rules that FTOs must not adopt an MPL course without the cadets having guaranteed employment – or at least the guarantee of ending up in the holding pool of an airline (obviously you can not eliminate the risk of not getting a job immediately).
I believe it was immoral for Alpha Aviation to embark on this project without global recognition of a generic SOP/MPL. This is why there are well-founded accusations that Alpha Aviation saw the Philippines as an easy prey because this would never happen in Europe. There have been 3 MPL schemes in Europe so far. The very first was the Danish MPL that had cadets sponsored by the airline (which then went bust). FTE and Oxford are currently partnered with FlyBe. So all schemes are airline sponsored. All cadets will at least end up in the holding pool at their own risk that they may not be given a job – but this is a risk all cadet pilots take regardless of licence. Also, the Flybe MPL schemes have an in-built guarantee that if anything goes wrong with the MPL, they will fund the conversion of cadets to CPL ME/IR.
Alpha and CIA have no such guarantee.
CIA is NOT a scam. But I do believe, from the evidence, that they know they are jumping the gun. They have a lucrative business that they could never get away with in Europe. Where is my proof? Well the fact that they are not in the UK. Out of all the countries in the world, why the Philippines? Why use that country as a starting point? When I look at the big picture, not just an a/c that has gone tech, I smell something that goes right to the very top of CAAP and the government. Maybe Philippines wants to establish itself as the main airline pilot training centre in Asia? Perhaps the country wants to position itself before another country gets the accolade?
Now these are not bad reasons, of course not. I encourage anything that gets the Philippines the investment and recognition it deserves. But just like 99.9% of “good intentions” in the Philippines, there is usually only one winner and it is never the people. Congratulations to all the sponsored cadets who have now finished the MPL and are flying with Cebu (are they yet) but I expected nothing less.
My main concern is the non-sponsored cadets. The Global Airline Community will not change overnight. A generic MPL will not be accepted or absorbed in 1, 2 or 3 years at least. So the non-sponsored cadets have only one choice which is to transfer onto a fATPL. What other options are there? Non-sponsored MPL cadets graduating in the next few years will not be able to build hours while they wait for a job which can only be for Cebu Pacific. And what happens if that non-sponsored MPL cadet fails the interview for Cebu pacific?
If a generic MPL is accepted globally in 5 years time (which I doubt), then you can be 100% sure that there will be a whole host of new rules and regulation rendering any MPL cadet training from 2007 onwards obsolete.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEAsia
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betpumps said and I comment:
Our fellow commentator rq4globalhawk has given his view:
"After teaching pilots the generic manufacturer's SOP they can be easily trained for the airline-specific procedures. Many airlines have mixed Airbus and Boeing fleets and some come up with standard procedures for both (callouts, etc.). I've worked with other airlines and gone through their manuals. The difference isn't really that much and the young pilots are so malleable and easy to train ... well, most of them anyway."
and it goes in the direction I meant.
The generic SOPs are issued by the a/c manufacturer's (as approved by the type certifying authorities) and provided to all the operators as the manner in which the a/c should be operated. Most airlines use them as is. Nevertheless, the operators can, and some do, add their own particular ways to "some procedures" but not all. At least I've never seen that.
So, the students could be trained in the standard SOPs for the type rating and them would have to adapt to their employer's few changes to those. Exactly the same path followed by the traditional CPL/IR/TR.
Well... extreme indeed.... But it just goes towards my point: It is an odd point that probably reminds the pilots that, in certain flight phases, there are other ways to reduce speed.
There is no doubt that the MPL is the future (happening now) training model for airline pilots and should be encouraged, despite the always present "resistent to change" characters. Human nature....
The airlines would be happy to receive a properly type rated co-pilot (and just train him/her on its SOP differences).
You just agreed with me. lololol And the MPL has about 240 hrs total time.
I beg to differ. The MPL trains type rated pilots that end up getting a frozen ATPL that will become "normal" after some (many) flight hours have been logged. After that there is no difference.
I'm 100% in agreement with you. That is the unfortunate problem.
ICAO sets the licensing standards (and curricullum) and then it is up to the individual aeronautical authorities to set the rules. See what CASA did in my last post.
Then, what is stopping them from following Flybe's example?
Well.... I prefer not to comment on most of your opinion except to say that they are spoiling a tremendous opportunity to lead the MPL training world. On the other hand, it would sufice to remember the Bond Aviation history and see it re-running....
I'm with you!!! The self sponsored students are just some "small fish" that are trying to make headway in this world full of sharks.
It is up to Alpha Aviation to resolve those issues created by themselves. And rapidly!!!
I don't think so. Everything is in place but require some small changes such as the removal of the requirement for a sponsoring airline.
Once that is done, the sky is the limit and the MPL training will take off as it should.
I would disagree, traveller, that ICAO made a mistake in limiting the MPL to the sponsoring airline’s SOPs. I think, in its infancy, this was a very wise thing to do. An SOP is to an extent the airline’s bible. It is a set of procedures that every employee must go by without compromise. And it is a set of procedures that have been refined from the manufacturers SOPs that is tailored towards the airline.
"After teaching pilots the generic manufacturer's SOP they can be easily trained for the airline-specific procedures. Many airlines have mixed Airbus and Boeing fleets and some come up with standard procedures for both (callouts, etc.). I've worked with other airlines and gone through their manuals. The difference isn't really that much and the young pilots are so malleable and easy to train ... well, most of them anyway."
and it goes in the direction I meant.
This is why there can not be and never will be a generic SOP – ICAO would never advocate it and no airline would ever accept it.
So, the students could be trained in the standard SOPs for the type rating and them would have to adapt to their employer's few changes to those. Exactly the same path followed by the traditional CPL/IR/TR.
An extreme example may be an SOP where a specific airline does not allow the deployment of speed brakes at a certain altitude/speed in case it wakes up their business-class passengers!
The point is that an MPL is so fundamentally different to the tried-and-tested fATPL route that airlines (especially the legacy carriers with deep-routed training cultures and procedures) needed to have the guarantee that if they were to take on an MPL cadet, they would receive a ready made pilot who required no training and knew how to operate everything in the cockpit and in the right order.
The airlines would be happy to receive a properly type rated co-pilot (and just train him/her on its SOP differences).
We could argue for ever as to the benefits of flying 150 hours in a Cessna 152 if the aim of the pilot is to fly 747s. What do they really learn in those 100 hours of flight experience? Surely 50 hours in the flight simulator of an A320 is more beneficial than flying 100 hours at 2000 feet in a Cessna.
....You are not training to be a pilot. You are training to be an airline pilot and those two entities are entirely different. An MPL does not allow you the freedom that a fATPL does. The first MPL did not even allow you to fly solo in a Cessna!
So the very simple logic means that CURRENTLY, an MPL cadet MUST have a guaranteed job at the end of training of the licence is useless because you can not do anything with it.
The biggest mistake ICAO made was not ensuring that there should be very stringent rules that FTOs must not adopt an MPL course without the cadets having guaranteed employment – or at least the guarantee of ending up in the holding pool of an airline (obviously you can not eliminate the risk of not getting a job immediately).
I believe it was immoral for Alpha Aviation to embark on this project without global recognition of a generic SOP/MPL. This is why there are well-founded accusations that Alpha Aviation saw the Philippines as an easy prey because this would never happen in Europe. There have been 3 MPL schemes in Europe so far. The very first was the Danish MPL that had cadets sponsored by the airline (which then went bust). FTE and Oxford are currently partnered with FlyBe. So all schemes are airline sponsored. All cadets will at least end up in the holding pool at their own risk that they may not be given a job – but this is a risk all cadet pilots take regardless of licence. Also, the Flybe MPL schemes have an in-built guarantee that if anything goes wrong with the MPL, they will fund the conversion of cadets to CPL ME/IR.
Alpha and CIA have no such guarantee.
Alpha and CIA have no such guarantee.
CIA is NOT a scam. But I do believe, from the evidence, that they know they are jumping the gun. They have a lucrative business that they could never get away with in Europe. Where is my proof? Well the fact that they are not in the UK. Out of all the countries in the world, why the Philippines? Why use that country as a starting point? When I look at the big picture, not just an a/c that has gone tech, I smell something that goes right to the very top of CAAP and the government. Maybe Philippines wants to establish itself as the main airline pilot training centre in Asia? Perhaps the country wants to position itself before another country gets the accolade?
Now these are not bad reasons, of course not. I encourage anything that gets the Philippines the investment and recognition it deserves. But just like 99.9% of “good intentions” in the Philippines, there is usually only one winner and it is never the people. Congratulations to all the sponsored cadets who have now finished the MPL and are flying with Cebu (are they yet) but I expected nothing less.
My main concern is the non-sponsored cadets. The Global Airline Community will not change overnight. A generic MPL will not be accepted or absorbed in 1, 2 or 3 years at least. So the non-sponsored cadets have only one choice which is to transfer onto a fATPL. What other options are there? Non-sponsored MPL cadets graduating in the next few years will not be able to build hours while they wait for a job which can only be for Cebu Pacific. And what happens if that non-sponsored MPL cadet fails the interview for Cebu pacific?
If a generic MPL is accepted globally in 5 years time (which I doubt), then you can be 100% sure that there will be a whole host of new rules and regulation rendering any MPL cadet training from 2007 onwards obsolete.
Once that is done, the sky is the limit and the MPL training will take off as it should.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEAsia
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPL
I'm glad to see we're getting a good, civilized and professional discussion for a change. I'll get back to you gentlemen as soon as I get more info from my MPL grapevine.
It would be great if your grapevine could indicate in which direction ICAO is going.
The future does not lye in keeping the blame on the past individuals that, one way or another, found themselves stuck in this mess. Exception made to those who were born crooks and who are expected to face the law.
Lets go forward.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEAsia
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPL
It would be a pitty if this thread came to an end without seeing the current problems resolved. So, let all those who care continue posting information that might, in some way, assist those who are in charge of sorting the mess out.
This is what is published by ICAO on its FAQ website:
It seems that the MPL "must" be recognized by all the Contracting States. But will it enable a "Conversion" or "Validation"?
This is stated above:
"......the privileges of a MPL are equivalent to those of CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft. However, and because the MPL is geared toward operation of multi-crew airplane, an MPL pilot cannot generally fly on single pilot aeroplane without meeting additional requirements. For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements."
Could this imply (somehow) that the MPL training time and syllabus could be counted as credits to get a Type Rated CPL?
As there are contributors here that know about these legal matters, could we get their opinion?
This is what is published by ICAO on its FAQ website:
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31
Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL)
What is the MPL?
The MPL allows a pilot to exercise the privileges of a co-pilot in a commercial air transportation on multi-crew aeroplanes. It provides the aviation community with an opportunity to train pilots directly for co-pilot duties. It is a new licence that has been introduced in addition to the existing pilot licences defined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing.
The licence focuses on ab initio airline pilot training. MPL training and assessment will be competency-based and involve a multi-crew environment and threat and error management from the onset. It provides for greater use of flight simulation training devices and include mandatory upset training. At this stage, only aeroplanes are considered for this new licence. The details of the requirements for the licence are contained in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG). These documents outline the minimum international Standard for the implementation of the MPL by any State; they can be purchased directly from ICAO through the Document Sales Unit.
Will the MPL be recognized by Contracting States?
As a licence defined by ICAO the MPL will be recognized by all ICAO Contracting States even by those that may decide not to establish an MPL as a licence within their own States. More details on the recognition of licences by other States can be found on the FAQ on "International recognition of flight crew licences".
What is a multi-crew aeroplane?
It is an aeroplane that requires a flight crew of at least two pilots. One of them is the pilot-in-command (the captain) and the other is the co-pilot (or first officer). All jet air transport aeroplanes and the vast majority of turbine powered air transport aircraft and business jet are multi-crew aeroplanes. The definition in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing states that it is: "an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot as specified in the flight manual or by the air operator certificate."
Do I have to hold a MPL to be a co-pilot on a muti-crew aeroplane?
No, the co-pilot on a multi-crew aeroplane can hold either a MPL or a CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft.
What are the differences between the CPL and the MPL?
For the purposes of operating multi-crew aircraft, the privileges of a MPL are equivalent to those of CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft. However, and because the MPL is geared toward operation of multi-crew airplane, an MPL pilot cannot generally fly on single pilot aeroplane without meeting additional requirements. For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements.
A number of MPL courses may be a modification of the current JAA frozen ATPL or the Transport Canada and FAA CPL/Multi-engine training, but it is expected that the majority will follow the guidance proposed in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document.
What are the minimum flight hours required for the MPL?
The ICAO Standard for the MPL specifies 240 hours as the minimum number of actual and simulated flight hours performing the functions of the pilot flying and the pilot non-flying. However, the Standard does not specify the breakdown between actual and simulated flight hours and thus allow part of the training curriculum that was traditionally conducted on aeroplane to be done on flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). However, there is a requirement that the applicant meets all the actual flying time for a private pilot licence plus additional actual flying time in instrument, night flying and upset recovery.
Why was the MPL established?
The MPL was established to respond to the growing demand in the aviation training community that felt that the current regulatory regime that dictated a large number of flying hours in solo and on a smaller aircraft was not the most efficient and safe way to train pilots for copilot duties on jet transport aircraft.
Further, there was some perceived negative training in the apprenticeship model that was first developed for flight training in the post second world war era. A number of training organizations and airlines were adamant that modern training techniques and research into the use of modern training devices such as flight simulation training devices needed to be recognized within the ICAO licensing structure. The ICAO Air Navigation Commission formed a Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel to explore the options and opportunities to address the shortcomings of some current licensing requirements. The competency-based concept and the MPL licence were the outcome of that panel's deliberations.
How can the MPL be implemented?
ICAO has developed the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document to support the implementation of the MPL and will monitor developments in this area through a proof of concept programme. This programme will involve stakeholders from regulatory bodies and industry. In addition, an Air Training Organization must meet the prescribed organizational standards which are also outlined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG).
What is the status of the MPL regulatory provisions?
The ICAO Council adopted the provisions related to the MPL as part of Amendment 167 to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing on 10 March 2006. The new provisions will become applicable on 23 November 2006.
Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL)
What is the MPL?
The MPL allows a pilot to exercise the privileges of a co-pilot in a commercial air transportation on multi-crew aeroplanes. It provides the aviation community with an opportunity to train pilots directly for co-pilot duties. It is a new licence that has been introduced in addition to the existing pilot licences defined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing.
The licence focuses on ab initio airline pilot training. MPL training and assessment will be competency-based and involve a multi-crew environment and threat and error management from the onset. It provides for greater use of flight simulation training devices and include mandatory upset training. At this stage, only aeroplanes are considered for this new licence. The details of the requirements for the licence are contained in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG). These documents outline the minimum international Standard for the implementation of the MPL by any State; they can be purchased directly from ICAO through the Document Sales Unit.
Will the MPL be recognized by Contracting States?
As a licence defined by ICAO the MPL will be recognized by all ICAO Contracting States even by those that may decide not to establish an MPL as a licence within their own States. More details on the recognition of licences by other States can be found on the FAQ on "International recognition of flight crew licences".
What is a multi-crew aeroplane?
It is an aeroplane that requires a flight crew of at least two pilots. One of them is the pilot-in-command (the captain) and the other is the co-pilot (or first officer). All jet air transport aeroplanes and the vast majority of turbine powered air transport aircraft and business jet are multi-crew aeroplanes. The definition in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing states that it is: "an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot as specified in the flight manual or by the air operator certificate."
Do I have to hold a MPL to be a co-pilot on a muti-crew aeroplane?
No, the co-pilot on a multi-crew aeroplane can hold either a MPL or a CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft.
What are the differences between the CPL and the MPL?
For the purposes of operating multi-crew aircraft, the privileges of a MPL are equivalent to those of CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft. However, and because the MPL is geared toward operation of multi-crew airplane, an MPL pilot cannot generally fly on single pilot aeroplane without meeting additional requirements. For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements.
A number of MPL courses may be a modification of the current JAA frozen ATPL or the Transport Canada and FAA CPL/Multi-engine training, but it is expected that the majority will follow the guidance proposed in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document.
What are the minimum flight hours required for the MPL?
The ICAO Standard for the MPL specifies 240 hours as the minimum number of actual and simulated flight hours performing the functions of the pilot flying and the pilot non-flying. However, the Standard does not specify the breakdown between actual and simulated flight hours and thus allow part of the training curriculum that was traditionally conducted on aeroplane to be done on flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). However, there is a requirement that the applicant meets all the actual flying time for a private pilot licence plus additional actual flying time in instrument, night flying and upset recovery.
Why was the MPL established?
The MPL was established to respond to the growing demand in the aviation training community that felt that the current regulatory regime that dictated a large number of flying hours in solo and on a smaller aircraft was not the most efficient and safe way to train pilots for copilot duties on jet transport aircraft.
Further, there was some perceived negative training in the apprenticeship model that was first developed for flight training in the post second world war era. A number of training organizations and airlines were adamant that modern training techniques and research into the use of modern training devices such as flight simulation training devices needed to be recognized within the ICAO licensing structure. The ICAO Air Navigation Commission formed a Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel to explore the options and opportunities to address the shortcomings of some current licensing requirements. The competency-based concept and the MPL licence were the outcome of that panel's deliberations.
How can the MPL be implemented?
ICAO has developed the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document to support the implementation of the MPL and will monitor developments in this area through a proof of concept programme. This programme will involve stakeholders from regulatory bodies and industry. In addition, an Air Training Organization must meet the prescribed organizational standards which are also outlined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG).
What is the status of the MPL regulatory provisions?
The ICAO Council adopted the provisions related to the MPL as part of Amendment 167 to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing on 10 March 2006. The new provisions will become applicable on 23 November 2006.
This is stated above:
"......the privileges of a MPL are equivalent to those of CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft. However, and because the MPL is geared toward operation of multi-crew airplane, an MPL pilot cannot generally fly on single pilot aeroplane without meeting additional requirements. For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements."
Could this imply (somehow) that the MPL training time and syllabus could be counted as credits to get a Type Rated CPL?
As there are contributors here that know about these legal matters, could we get their opinion?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that it is nice to have a civilised discussion here.
If you go through my posts on this thread, you will see that I am not negative about the MPL. I will never say that an MPL cadet is less of a pilot or question his/her ability. I believe that the MPL has its advantages and is more relevant to airlines.
You should all know my stance by now - that is I am concerned for current CIA non-sponsored cadets AND those who are joining CIA now or in the near future (is CIA still taking 20 +cadets each month - anyone have latest intake figures?).
The quoted text below highlights my concern:
Like I have said from the start, any one who has an MPL and is not sponsored by an airline will need to build hours in order to become attractive for when an airline decides to recruit. An MPL pilot can not build hours unless they gain
.
If you can afford the extra flight time and tuition, then this is not a problem. To answer your question Traveller 93, yes the MPL hours can count (perhaps even 100%) to the CPL. The requirements are a minimum 150 hours - just like any other CPL course. I see no reason why the MPL hours you have built can not go towards the CPL but you do need to meet the 150 hours (or so) in order to satisfy the CPL license. I do not not know if you need to resit the 170a or whether the MPL covers that already.
Either way, there will still be a lot more hours to build in order to be able to fly General Aviation to build hours. And this costs money. As it stands, I would never recommend the MPL to anyone who is not sponsored. It is too big a risk. Of course in 1-2 years time things may be different but do you really want to risk PHP4m of your family's money in the hope that the generic MPL is adopted by every airline?
If you go through my posts on this thread, you will see that I am not negative about the MPL. I will never say that an MPL cadet is less of a pilot or question his/her ability. I believe that the MPL has its advantages and is more relevant to airlines.
You should all know my stance by now - that is I am concerned for current CIA non-sponsored cadets AND those who are joining CIA now or in the near future (is CIA still taking 20 +cadets each month - anyone have latest intake figures?).
The quoted text below highlights my concern:
For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements.
specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements
If you can afford the extra flight time and tuition, then this is not a problem. To answer your question Traveller 93, yes the MPL hours can count (perhaps even 100%) to the CPL. The requirements are a minimum 150 hours - just like any other CPL course. I see no reason why the MPL hours you have built can not go towards the CPL but you do need to meet the 150 hours (or so) in order to satisfy the CPL license. I do not not know if you need to resit the 170a or whether the MPL covers that already.
Either way, there will still be a lot more hours to build in order to be able to fly General Aviation to build hours. And this costs money. As it stands, I would never recommend the MPL to anyone who is not sponsored. It is too big a risk. Of course in 1-2 years time things may be different but do you really want to risk PHP4m of your family's money in the hope that the generic MPL is adopted by every airline?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I have said from the start, any one who has an MPL and is not sponsored by an airline will need to build hours in order to become attractive for when an airline decides to recruit.
On whose authority do you make this assumption? The MPL will be attractive enough.
He/She can pray and wait for a phone call (remember after a year your IR is expired) or you can try and find a General Aviation job to build hours, keep current so when a recruitment drive occurs in an airline, you are a very attractive candidate.
The latter route into the airlines is something that happens in every single country for non-sponsored pilots. That is my authority. It is how the majority of pilots I fly with everyday got to the airlines - the other method is via the military or if they were on a specific airline sponsorship scheme. This is also based on my being an airline pilot of 10 years compared to you being a cadet for 1 or 2 years ok?
My point is that with a basic MPL license, you can not apply to any general aviation jobs without doing further training to satisfy certain requirements. That was all I was pertaining to in my post.
Having read your post, it seems CIA have now dropped the self-sponsored MPL. This is good. And it also demonstrates that the self-sponsored MPL that Clark marketed was too ahead of its time and has ultimately failed. To all the posters that questioned the MPL via the countless pages on this thread, it appears that you were indeed correct - but this does not make me feel proud.
ICAO has and will acknowledge the self-sponsored cadets that have and are training at Clark. This is not ground breaking or positive news as this was always the case with this course. It was an approved course.
However what does ICAO recognised actually mean in terms of getting a job? If Cebu Pacific don't take you (why should they considering they have sponsored pilots at Clark?) what will you do except to pay for my training so you can fly Gen Aviation to build hours? Sitting around waiting for a phonecall from Cebu is a very very risky plan.
I hope that any pilot, self-sponsored or otherwise (MPL or fATPL) has a back-up plan upon graduation in the very likely event that there is not a job waiting for them.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somewhere Out There
Age: 45
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lolo, I got to agree with Betbump. The point is that, being a self-sponsored cadet, will the MPL you will possess be enough to land you a job...more specifically, at Cebu Pacific. When you do finish your training and get offered a job by Cebu Pacific, Great!! But what if they don't? And you do have to think of "the otherside of the coin". You've got to start thinking way ahead here before you end up with only an MPL license with an A320 stamped on it. That is basically what Betbump is trying to say. When he said "Like I have said from the start, any one who has an MPL and is not sponsored by an airline will need to build hours in order to become attractive for when an airline decides to recruit", he was stating a "more than likely" scenario...it is something to think about. You said, "On whose authority do you make this assumption? The MPL will be attractive enough"...bro, I am sure Betbump was stating and suggesting things out of years of general aviation/military/airline experience...but your statement falls just short of arrogance. Tell you what, other than Cebu Pacific, take a look at airline jobs board on the web and then you tell us if what you have "will be attractive enough". Here are some of the websites so that you will have an idea...these are just a few, but there are other sites.
Flight Crew Personnel, Aviation Jobs, Aviation Maintenance Jobs, Flight Crew Jobs- Parc Aviation
Airline Pilot Jobs & Pilot Employment - Rishworth Aviation Recruitment Specialists
Pilot Jobs, Aviation Jobs, Aviation Employment, Career Fairs, Job Fairs
Many of us had made certain decisions in our flying careers that sometimes were for the good, but others for the bad...but then again that's life...there are definitely risks. I think you had made a calculated and well-thoughtout risk when you decided to join that MPL program, which is good...and I hope the very best for you. But like what Betbumps said, do not wait too long for a phone call.
Just my two cents.
Flight Crew Personnel, Aviation Jobs, Aviation Maintenance Jobs, Flight Crew Jobs- Parc Aviation
Airline Pilot Jobs & Pilot Employment - Rishworth Aviation Recruitment Specialists
Pilot Jobs, Aviation Jobs, Aviation Employment, Career Fairs, Job Fairs
Many of us had made certain decisions in our flying careers that sometimes were for the good, but others for the bad...but then again that's life...there are definitely risks. I think you had made a calculated and well-thoughtout risk when you decided to join that MPL program, which is good...and I hope the very best for you. But like what Betbumps said, do not wait too long for a phone call.
Just my two cents.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEAsia
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPL validation or conversion?
I don't believe that any speculation on who is who will be useful for the discussion but (there is always one....) I also don't think that lately there has been any CIA cadet posting in this forum. Why do some people behave like cameleons???
Someone said before:
"Special batches of ICAO-approved students"? Does this mean that ICAO has changed the rules and, if so, where are they officially publicised?
Since the philipino airlines will not accept the self sponsored cadets, the MPLrs will have to have their licences validated/converted by other countries authorities. Will they??
If not, unemployment is certain!!!
This is what the ICAO FAQ website says about licences conversion/validation:
As said in the ICAO site, and despite the licence recognition, it is totally up to each country's civil aviation authorities to accept a foreign licence. And if they don't have the MPL on the statute book....
So, what say the old hands in the business about this?
Lets hear it!!!
Someone said before:
The current unsponsored MPL students are special batches of ICAO-approved students.
Since the philipino airlines will not accept the self sponsored cadets, the MPLrs will have to have their licences validated/converted by other countries authorities. Will they??
If not, unemployment is certain!!!
This is what the ICAO FAQ website says about licences conversion/validation:
ICAO | FLS | FAQs
ICAO has developed international licensing Standards for the following aviation activities:
Flight crew licences:
a. Licences and Ratings for Pilots (Annex 1, Chapter 2):
o Private pilot (aeroplane and helicopter);
o Commercial pilot (aeroplane and helicopter);
o Airline transport pilot (aeroplane and helicopter);
o Glider pilot; and
o Free balloon pilot.
Annex 1 also provides for a series of ratings (class, type, instrument and instructor) that complement the flight crew licences.
International licensing Standards for the following additional aviation activities will become applicable on 23 November 2006:
Licences and Ratings for Pilots (Annex 1, Chapter 2):
o Multi-crew pilot licence (aeroplane);
o Private, commercial and airline transport pilot licence for airship; and
o Powered-lift pilot licence.
------------------
The Convention on International Civil Aviation, often called the Chicago Convention, provides for worldwide recognition of flight crew licences issued by any member State of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provided that:
a. the licence meets or exceeds the ICAO licensing Standards of Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing to the Convention on International Civil Aviation;
and
b. the licence is used on an aircraft which is registered in the State which has issued or validated the licence.
If the licence is to be used on an aircraft which is not registered in the issuing State, the licence holder must obtain avalidationof the licence from the State of Registry or alternatively obtain a new licence issued by the State of Registry.
ICAO does not issue any licences. Licences issued by ICAO Contracting States on the basis of Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing, are habitually called ICAO licences. This has led many to believe that there is a specific ICAO or international licence. The fact is that there is not one single international licence issued by ICAO or any other organization. States issue their own licences based on national regulations in conformity with Annex 1 specifications and validate licences issued by other Contracting States on the basis of bilateral or multilateral agreements or the fulfilment of nationally legislated requirements.
For more information, please refer to Annex 1, Chapter 1, paragraph 1.2.2.
Use of flight crew licences on foreign-registered aircraft
Any pilot who wishes to fly on an aircraft registered in a State other than the one that has issued the licence, needs to obtain an authorization from the State of Registry. This authorization is generally given by the State of Registry through a validation or a conversion of the foreign licence. In general, the validation process is used for short-term authorization while the conversion process is used for longer-term authorization.
Validation of a foreign licence
When a State validates a foreign licence, it recognizes it as valid for use on aircraft on its own registry. The Convention on International Civil Aviation and its Annex 1 do not contain specific requirements for the validation of licences beyond establishing the principle and the fact that the validity of a validation, cannot be extended beyond the validity of the supporting licence. As a result, conditions under which validation is granted vary from State to State. It depends on the level of privileges required and on the origin of the licence. It is generally easy to obtain a validation for VFR private flights, but more stringent rules may exist for professional licences. The applicant may be required
to get additional training and/or to take new exams.
Conversion of a foreign licence
As an alternative to validate a foreign licence, a State may issue a licence that is based on the foreign licence held by the applicant. In doing so, the Licensing Authority accepts the fact that holding a foreign licence is an acceptable way to demonstrate compliance with its own national licensing regulation.The conditions for the conversion are generally similar to that of a validation.
How to obtain a validation or a conversion?
The decision to validate or convert a foreign licence is left to the discretion of each Licensing Authority.ICAO is unfortunately not in a position to provide information on the details of the validation and conversion policy and procedures established by each of its Contracting States. The most reliable source of information is the Licensing Authority of the State in which the licence is to be validated or converted, and at times Consulates and Embassies may be helpful.
For more information on validation of a foreign licence, please refer to Annex 1, Chapter 1, paragraph 1.2.2.
Aviation activities requiring a licence
ICAO has developed international licensing Standards for the following aviation activities:
Flight crew licences:
a. Licences and Ratings for Pilots (Annex 1, Chapter 2):
o Private pilot (aeroplane and helicopter);
o Commercial pilot (aeroplane and helicopter);
o Airline transport pilot (aeroplane and helicopter);
o Glider pilot; and
o Free balloon pilot.
Annex 1 also provides for a series of ratings (class, type, instrument and instructor) that complement the flight crew licences.
International licensing Standards for the following additional aviation activities will become applicable on 23 November 2006:
Licences and Ratings for Pilots (Annex 1, Chapter 2):
o Multi-crew pilot licence (aeroplane);
o Private, commercial and airline transport pilot licence for airship; and
o Powered-lift pilot licence.
------------------
International recognition of flight crew licences
The Convention on International Civil Aviation, often called the Chicago Convention, provides for worldwide recognition of flight crew licences issued by any member State of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provided that:
a. the licence meets or exceeds the ICAO licensing Standards of Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing to the Convention on International Civil Aviation;
and
b. the licence is used on an aircraft which is registered in the State which has issued or validated the licence.
If the licence is to be used on an aircraft which is not registered in the issuing State, the licence holder must obtain avalidationof the licence from the State of Registry or alternatively obtain a new licence issued by the State of Registry.
ICAO licence or international licence
ICAO does not issue any licences. Licences issued by ICAO Contracting States on the basis of Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing, are habitually called ICAO licences. This has led many to believe that there is a specific ICAO or international licence. The fact is that there is not one single international licence issued by ICAO or any other organization. States issue their own licences based on national regulations in conformity with Annex 1 specifications and validate licences issued by other Contracting States on the basis of bilateral or multilateral agreements or the fulfilment of nationally legislated requirements.
For more information, please refer to Annex 1, Chapter 1, paragraph 1.2.2.
Use of flight crew licences on foreign-registered aircraft
Any pilot who wishes to fly on an aircraft registered in a State other than the one that has issued the licence, needs to obtain an authorization from the State of Registry. This authorization is generally given by the State of Registry through a validation or a conversion of the foreign licence. In general, the validation process is used for short-term authorization while the conversion process is used for longer-term authorization.
Validation of a foreign licence
When a State validates a foreign licence, it recognizes it as valid for use on aircraft on its own registry. The Convention on International Civil Aviation and its Annex 1 do not contain specific requirements for the validation of licences beyond establishing the principle and the fact that the validity of a validation, cannot be extended beyond the validity of the supporting licence. As a result, conditions under which validation is granted vary from State to State. It depends on the level of privileges required and on the origin of the licence. It is generally easy to obtain a validation for VFR private flights, but more stringent rules may exist for professional licences. The applicant may be required
to get additional training and/or to take new exams.
Conversion of a foreign licence
As an alternative to validate a foreign licence, a State may issue a licence that is based on the foreign licence held by the applicant. In doing so, the Licensing Authority accepts the fact that holding a foreign licence is an acceptable way to demonstrate compliance with its own national licensing regulation.The conditions for the conversion are generally similar to that of a validation.
How to obtain a validation or a conversion?
The decision to validate or convert a foreign licence is left to the discretion of each Licensing Authority.ICAO is unfortunately not in a position to provide information on the details of the validation and conversion policy and procedures established by each of its Contracting States. The most reliable source of information is the Licensing Authority of the State in which the licence is to be validated or converted, and at times Consulates and Embassies may be helpful.
For more information on validation of a foreign licence, please refer to Annex 1, Chapter 1, paragraph 1.2.2.
So, what say the old hands in the business about this?
Lets hear it!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEAsia
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rq4globalhawk
Any news? Please don't tell us that the grapevine has run dry.
betpump5
Your statements go in full agreement with my last post regarding the licence conversions by the individual authorities.
In the frame of the actual CIA MPL self-sponsored cadets situation, and the ICAO guidelines for licence conversion, what do you think should be CIA's recourse to resolve the very real drama of those poor souls?
We get a lot of hot air in this thread but, besides repeated empty "assurances" that all is well, no solution is in sight. At least we have not seen a single news release that any self-sponsored pilot cadets have been employed.
What is CIA waiting for?
And time is passing....
I'm glad to see we're getting a good, civilized and professional discussion for a change. I'll get back to you gentlemen as soon as I get more info from my MPL grapevine.
betpump5
The latter route into the airlines is something that happens in every single country for non-sponsored pilots. That is my authority. It is how the majority of pilots I fly with everyday got to the airlines - the other method is via the military or if they were on a specific airline sponsorship scheme. This is also based on my being an airline pilot of 10 years compared to you being a cadet for 1 or 2 years ok?
My point is that with a basic MPL license, you can not apply to any general aviation jobs without doing further training to satisfy certain requirements. That was all I was pertaining to in my post.
My point is that with a basic MPL license, you can not apply to any general aviation jobs without doing further training to satisfy certain requirements. That was all I was pertaining to in my post.
In the frame of the actual CIA MPL self-sponsored cadets situation, and the ICAO guidelines for licence conversion, what do you think should be CIA's recourse to resolve the very real drama of those poor souls?
We get a lot of hot air in this thread but, besides repeated empty "assurances" that all is well, no solution is in sight. At least we have not seen a single news release that any self-sponsored pilot cadets have been employed.
What is CIA waiting for?
And time is passing....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Area 51
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any news? Please don't tell us that the grapevine has run dry.
No, my grapevine is still active, but I don't want to quote speculative info.
Right now there's a glimmer of hope for a few (very few) self-sponsored Clark Aviation students. My source does not want me to elaborate - they've had false starts before.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEAsia
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rq4globalhawk
All is well and only the "pretender pilot" doesn't understand what it takes to be a professional airman.
You are correct. Rather wait a little longer than to subject the poor guys to another disapointment. They had enough of those over the last few years. But, again, time is running...
Is it true that CIA has been granted authority to run CPL/IR/TR training? If I remember correctly, this thread's blabber has mentioned something about that and, if true, perhaps it could be a good way out of the bottleneck.
To keep the current situation as is, is not a solution.
Sorry for the late reply but I've been busy flying.
No, my grapevine is still active, but I don't want to quote speculative info.
Right now there's a glimmer of hope for a few (very few) self-sponsored Clark Aviation students. My source does not want me to elaborate - they've had false starts before.
Right now there's a glimmer of hope for a few (very few) self-sponsored Clark Aviation students. My source does not want me to elaborate - they've had false starts before.
Is it true that CIA has been granted authority to run CPL/IR/TR training? If I remember correctly, this thread's blabber has mentioned something about that and, if true, perhaps it could be a good way out of the bottleneck.
To keep the current situation as is, is not a solution.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tiptoeing on the edge of idealism!
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lolo:
Just saw online that STATA will be starting a flight school including MPL in Australia...it appears to be an unsponsored MPL scheme. Apply August (Batch 1) or November (Batch 2) for a program starting sometime in 2010. Also I heard that there will be changes in the way the MPL is offered. I wonder if the two are connected...
Just saw online that STATA will be starting a flight school including MPL in Australia...it appears to be an unsponsored MPL scheme. Apply August (Batch 1) or November (Batch 2) for a program starting sometime in 2010. Also I heard that there will be changes in the way the MPL is offered. I wonder if the two are connected...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cebu cadets are making good progress with nearly 2 dozen of them having completed their base checks and are in various stages of their IOE. Another dozen or so Cebu cadets are scheduled for their Base checks in the coming weeks weather permitting.
Its the self sponsored cadets that are getting the stick.
Its the self sponsored cadets that are getting the stick.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lolo,
I must say that I am surprised at your U-Turn on the subject (wasn't you the guy proclaiming how good the MPL was even if you are just a self-sponsored cadet) but I am little more surprised at you trying to find "a solution to self sponsored cadets".
Why does a solution have to be found? CIA, just like any FTO in the world, does not and did not promise a job to self-sponsored cadets - regardless if they offer the fATPL or an MPL.
The self-sponsored MPL cadets have been approved by ICAO - i.e their MPL is perfectly valid. Therefore they are cadet pilots and have joined the other tens of thousand cadet pilots in the world looking for employment. Thats it! Finish. Tapos Na!
There are 2 solutions here which I have mentioned previously. Either play the waiting game to see if a carrier is prepared to take on MPL self-sponsored cadets or spend more money on ratings that will allow you to fly General Aviation so you can build hours. It is that simple and these are the only 2 options available.
Why the need for brainstorming? No one owes the self sponsored MPL cadets any favours, just like no one owes any fATPL cadets any favours.
I must say that I am surprised at your U-Turn on the subject (wasn't you the guy proclaiming how good the MPL was even if you are just a self-sponsored cadet) but I am little more surprised at you trying to find "a solution to self sponsored cadets".
Why does a solution have to be found? CIA, just like any FTO in the world, does not and did not promise a job to self-sponsored cadets - regardless if they offer the fATPL or an MPL.
The self-sponsored MPL cadets have been approved by ICAO - i.e their MPL is perfectly valid. Therefore they are cadet pilots and have joined the other tens of thousand cadet pilots in the world looking for employment. Thats it! Finish. Tapos Na!
There are 2 solutions here which I have mentioned previously. Either play the waiting game to see if a carrier is prepared to take on MPL self-sponsored cadets or spend more money on ratings that will allow you to fly General Aviation so you can build hours. It is that simple and these are the only 2 options available.
Why the need for brainstorming? No one owes the self sponsored MPL cadets any favours, just like no one owes any fATPL cadets any favours.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lolo,
I must say that I am surprised at your U-Turn on the subject (wasn't you the guy proclaiming how good the MPL was even if you are just a self-sponsored cadet) but I am little more surprised at you trying to find "a solution to self sponsored cadets".
Why does a solution have to be found? CIA, just like any FTO in the world, does not and did not promise a job to self-sponsored cadets - regardless if they offer the fATPL or an MPL.
The self-sponsored MPL cadets have been approved by ICAO - i.e their MPL is perfectly valid. Therefore they are cadet pilots and have joined the other tens of thousand cadet pilots in the world looking for employment. Thats it! Finish. Tapos Na!
There are 2 solutions here which I have mentioned previously. Either play the waiting game to see if a carrier is prepared to take on MPL self-sponsored cadets or spend more money on ratings that will allow you to fly General Aviation so you can build hours. It is that simple and these are the only 2 options available.
Why the need for brainstorming? No one owes the self sponsored MPL cadets any favours, just like no one owes any fATPL cadets any favours.
I am so amazed at the lack of research and understanding about how cadets get that elusive first job. People seem to think (or have been brainwashed) that they have an exclusive right to a RHS on a shiny jet - just because they are Type Rated on an A320 or because CIA management told them the MPL is fantastic! It does not work like that - regardless of whether you are training at Oxford Air Academy or CIA. Getting the license - regardless if it is MPL or fATPL is just the beginning. It does NOT guarantee a job.
Let me summarise everything now.
This thread is now dead. Any arguments/discussions that were posted here are now obsolete.
1. CIA have stopped offering the self-sponsored MPL and have reverted back to the CPL/ ME IR.
2. CIA will continue with the Cebu sponsored MPL (just like the MPL should be offered i.e affiliated with an airline)
3. Self sponsored MPL cadets who have finished/ are finishing have a 100% approved and valid flying licence. They now join the thousands of cadets worldwide looking for the job. The only difference is they can not build hours without paying for more ratings.
The end.
I must say that I am surprised at your U-Turn on the subject (wasn't you the guy proclaiming how good the MPL was even if you are just a self-sponsored cadet) but I am little more surprised at you trying to find "a solution to self sponsored cadets".
Why does a solution have to be found? CIA, just like any FTO in the world, does not and did not promise a job to self-sponsored cadets - regardless if they offer the fATPL or an MPL.
The self-sponsored MPL cadets have been approved by ICAO - i.e their MPL is perfectly valid. Therefore they are cadet pilots and have joined the other tens of thousand cadet pilots in the world looking for employment. Thats it! Finish. Tapos Na!
There are 2 solutions here which I have mentioned previously. Either play the waiting game to see if a carrier is prepared to take on MPL self-sponsored cadets or spend more money on ratings that will allow you to fly General Aviation so you can build hours. It is that simple and these are the only 2 options available.
Why the need for brainstorming? No one owes the self sponsored MPL cadets any favours, just like no one owes any fATPL cadets any favours.
I am so amazed at the lack of research and understanding about how cadets get that elusive first job. People seem to think (or have been brainwashed) that they have an exclusive right to a RHS on a shiny jet - just because they are Type Rated on an A320 or because CIA management told them the MPL is fantastic! It does not work like that - regardless of whether you are training at Oxford Air Academy or CIA. Getting the license - regardless if it is MPL or fATPL is just the beginning. It does NOT guarantee a job.
Let me summarise everything now.
This thread is now dead. Any arguments/discussions that were posted here are now obsolete.
1. CIA have stopped offering the self-sponsored MPL and have reverted back to the CPL/ ME IR.
2. CIA will continue with the Cebu sponsored MPL (just like the MPL should be offered i.e affiliated with an airline)
3. Self sponsored MPL cadets who have finished/ are finishing have a 100% approved and valid flying licence. They now join the thousands of cadets worldwide looking for the job. The only difference is they can not build hours without paying for more ratings.
The end.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allow me to apologise. I didn’t mean in my post that the thread should be finished. I was just making a point that for self-sponsored cadets, there is nothing more to say on the subject. But of course I would be very interested to see what happens to them in the next few months.
Lolo, do you know why there are not that many students posting here? Is Pprune a banned website in the college? Have students been told that if they divulge any information, they would be in serious trouble? Or is it simply a case that they prefer to stay focused on their training without the knowledge that their flight training is under huge scrutiny.
I must say though that I am very much disappointed and saddened at these turn of events and I hope that prospective cadets took some value from the posts I wrote for the last 3 months and really weighed up their risks. Unfortunately, I have been too late for the self sponsored cadets who walked blindly into this course. My personal opinion is that there is very little hope for them and let me educate people as to why:
Even if the self-sponsored MPL cadets have a few hundred thousand pesos left to get more training to fly GA and build hours, their only hope is still the Philippines where after 1500 hours ( a very long time in Philippine General Aviation) they are eligible to apply for PAL or Cebu. The 2 ab-intio scholarships in the world at present (Etihad and Cathay-both of which are currently closed) are reluctant to take on cadets who have already have a license – although it can happen but would you really want to do everything again for a year and a half? Other schemes around the world like KLM, Lufthansa, Singapore are only open to nationals.
Unless these self sponsored cadets are super rich, I honestly fear for them. I just hope that these guys had a back-up plan and were aware of the risks before they were brainwashed by the lovely advert in Manila Bulletin telling them they will be in an A320 within 12 months. I honestly hope they will be ok.
Lolo, do you know why there are not that many students posting here? Is Pprune a banned website in the college? Have students been told that if they divulge any information, they would be in serious trouble? Or is it simply a case that they prefer to stay focused on their training without the knowledge that their flight training is under huge scrutiny.
I must say though that I am very much disappointed and saddened at these turn of events and I hope that prospective cadets took some value from the posts I wrote for the last 3 months and really weighed up their risks. Unfortunately, I have been too late for the self sponsored cadets who walked blindly into this course. My personal opinion is that there is very little hope for them and let me educate people as to why:
Even if the self-sponsored MPL cadets have a few hundred thousand pesos left to get more training to fly GA and build hours, their only hope is still the Philippines where after 1500 hours ( a very long time in Philippine General Aviation) they are eligible to apply for PAL or Cebu. The 2 ab-intio scholarships in the world at present (Etihad and Cathay-both of which are currently closed) are reluctant to take on cadets who have already have a license – although it can happen but would you really want to do everything again for a year and a half? Other schemes around the world like KLM, Lufthansa, Singapore are only open to nationals.
Unless these self sponsored cadets are super rich, I honestly fear for them. I just hope that these guys had a back-up plan and were aware of the risks before they were brainwashed by the lovely advert in Manila Bulletin telling them they will be in an A320 within 12 months. I honestly hope they will be ok.