Clark Institute of Aviation

[cncalpha]

Question? Is it not conflict of Interest with Hulk BH from COO of 5J now being the boss of Alpha and CA?

[ATR_101]

Go GOLDEN EAGLES!!!

@ LOLO

ERAU MOTTO
"Leading the World in Aviation and Aerospace Education since 1926"

I wonder whats yours...........

[ubing]

Fleet:

Flight Safety = 80 Aircraft
EmbryRriddle = 60 Aircraft
BCIT = 22 Aircraft
PROIFR = 21 Aircraft

@ Lolo

Just curious, how many aircraft does CIA have?

[ssangyongs]

let me take a shot. 6 aircrafts? Maximum 3 serviceable

[cncalpha]

CA ownes a few Alpha "NZ bankrupt" planes and has a lease agreement with this Alpha Aviation and some BVI company owned by Indians from London on some 2nd hand Cessnas they got from a Cebu Company imported from the US which 1 was a write of from an insurance company due to an accident in 2005 and was grounded in the US but they dont care on safety as they got it cheap and leases it expensive milking dollars out of the PI. Just check the US tail number on the net and you can see the junk they bought but as they say, a good coat of paint makes magic. World Class my ass.


172S9334 17 March 2003
172S9154 10 September 2002
172S9136 05 August 2002
172S9681 24 August 2004
172S9137 13 August 2002
172S8343 23 December 1999

[738FO]

Apples and oranges????!!!!!

LOLO

"Bouncing around in their cessnas for hundreds and hundreds of hours?"

What are you trying to say in here? Coz i used to be one of those cadets that you are talking about!!! Are you trying to say we are stupid?? Careful of what you say.

based on your post, you sound so desperate to get into an airline.

Keep on dreaming, might be the only time youll get to fly.

Peace out!!

[ATR_101]

LOLO

I can only say one thing to you

DREAM ON!!!

[ZFT]

Lolo,

I think anyone who would undergo traditional training now that MPL is here lacks vision and foresight and an understanding and appreciation of the art, science and future of aviation. So don't miss the boat!

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the MPL. It was never intended to replace the traditional route. The sole purpose is to produce competent airline F/Os (currently on either A320 or B737).

There are many pilots who for a variety of reasons do not want to be airline pilots. For these pilots the traditional route is the only route.

[pinoycpt]

to cnc alpha:
you need to stop spreding lies and half truth about Clark aviation my friend:

1. Aircraft you are refering to as being insurance write off is ex N533ER.That aircraft indeed has damage history BUT it was repaired in US and released to service after being found AIRWORTHY by the FAA! Same aircraft continued to fly in the US until exported to Philippines..THAT IS THE TRUTH!Do you maybe know how many airliners had damage history and after proper repairs returned to service and continued to fly hundreds of passangers ha?
Is that aircraft safe to fly you say...FAA says it is (if you do not trust CAAP) !

2. Calling 1999,2002,2003 2004 dual GNS 430 or KLN 94/Bendix King MFD equipped Cessnas 172S junk...hmmm..no comment buddy..tells everything about your intentions here

[tbavprof]

A Lulu from Lolo

After the prerequisite 70 hours in a Cessna for the MPL license, I'll never set foot in a Cessna again; I'll be mastering more technologically advanced equipment, and 12 months later I'll be flying an Airbus A320 and working.

Check the economic picture. In 12 months you'll probably be kicking yourself in the **s, and wishing you could get a job, even flying a Cessna. The MPL doesn't give you the same flexibility as a CPL.

In 10 years, E-R, Flightsafety and others will be offering their own versions of MPL training and will borrow from the Clark experience.

Probably pretty doubtful on your first point unless a couple hundred thousand US commercial and ATP pilots are wiped out by a plague and the FAA approves MPL. Face the facts, MPL and frozen ATPL were developed for rapidly expanding commercial air markets without any GA or 135-equivalent apprenticeship opportunities to train a sufficient number of pilots, and provide the airlines with a low-cost labor force. There's no need for that in E-R or FS's major market.

As to your second point here, I'm pretty sure that any MPL program approved in the US will rely a lot more heavily on the experience the US military has with putting low-time pilots in command of multi-tens-of-millions-of-dollar aircraft, than anything you or CA may dream.

In 20 years, noone will be training in Cessnas any more.

They actually have some decent competition in the trainer market now. Whether they're still a player in that market in 20 years is anybody's guess. But I guess you have a crystal ball, so who WILL be the number one trainer manufacturer of the future?

I know it's hard to see now, but Clark, Alteon and others are pioneers, and data from their experience will be very valuable.

In aviation, that's know as "lessons learned." And it's also a pretty safe bet that in aviation, it's better to learn from someone else's experience than to have go through the tragedy yourself. Thanks for volunteering as a test pilot/guinea pig.

I think anyone who would undergo traditional training now that MPL is here lacks vision and foresight and an understanding and appreciation of the art, science and future of aviation.

I think anyone who would go after an MPL at this point in time, rather than traditional CPL/IR training, lacks the judgement to understand the realities of the world they actually exist in, instead of some future utopian vision. But the roadsides of history are littered with dreamers and their shattered dreams. And of course, there's always folks with more money than sense.

ZFT had a good point. The MPL will allow you to fly right seat in one of two aircraft, registered in countries that actually issue an MPL license. There is a difference between recognizing the MPL license (for a foreign pilot on a foreign aircraft, as required under ICAO regs) and issuing the license for use by one's own pilots and aircraft.

The present, and the future, of aviation would be a dreadfully boring place if the only options to fly were 70 hours of C150/172, and then a lifetime of A320/B737. But, to each his own.

[ZFT]

tbavprof,

he present, and the future, of aviation would be a dreadfully boring place if the only options to fly were 70 hours of C150/172, and then a lifetime of A320/B737. But, to each his own.

Once your have achieved >1500 hrs and gained your ATPL, there is nothing to stop you converting onto another type. In fact, post 1500 hours there is no regulatory difference in the career path options.

However, you are totally tied to the aircraft AND operator for that initial 1500 hours.

[Bagoongathipon]

misunderstanding

MPL was not brought up to fast track training of pilots. It actually changes how pilots are trained for the airline.

The authors realized that the traditional training for the airline PPL-CPL-ATPL can be actually enhanced by training ab-initio direct to the equipment they'll be starting.

Indeed comparing CPL to MPL are oranges and apples. There are alot of positve and negatives that can be debated upon. CPL is a more general route of experiences, thus more flexible to whatever equipment they'll be using. MPL o the otherhand focuses its training on airline environment and a specific equipment.

PPL and CPL will always be there because pilots have their own purpose of flying. Some wants to fly as a hobby, leisure etc etc. Yet some, wants to fly directly to the airlines.

Some say that they will NEVER fly with an MPL pilot as their F/O because of their lack of experience. But when this MPL pilot reaches 1500 in 2-3years, then they're no different with an CPL/ATPL pilot.

You cannot say 100% that a CPL holder with 3000 hours of Cessna flying in his belt is a better F/O than a 230 hour MPL holder (70hours cessna, 60hours Multicrew coordination training, 100hours Level D equipment based trained). Primarily because, there are CPL holder who flunks airline training. Why? because its a totally different environment.

In my opinion, General Aviation training is totally different from Airline LOFT and Base training. CPL pilots and MPL cadets are on the level playing field when they start training for the airline environment.

For a positive discussion, I ask those who are in the PPL and CPL/IR, give any experiences or lessons that you have encountered that will be impossible for an MPL pilot to learn throughout his training. Thanks.

[Bagoongathipon]

to MPL cadets

Please do understand that we are here to prove the aviation industry that our training will be ATLEAST at par to those cpl holders who are also wanting to be in the airline industry.

While we are here to prove, we should not provoke. Who are we compared to those thousands and thousands of flight hours?

Just do your thing.. we still have years to prove the aviation industry.. and we cannot prove it by just bashing. Just learn from them but dont be pulled down by those who have crab mentality.

[ATR_101]

@ TBAVPROF

Well said. nothing more to say in here.

[tbavprof]

MPL was not brought up to fast track training of pilots. It actually changes how pilots are trained for the airline.

I think that is more than a little naive. There has always been an economic and staffing factor in the length-of-training argument, whether commercial or military. To be a little more accurate, you might want to say, at least for the initial MPL programs in Europe, it changed how pilots are trained for a specific airline.

The authors realized that the traditional training for the airline PPL-CPL-ATPL can be actually enhanced by training ab-initio direct to the equipment they'll be starting.

That reasoning, with a notable exception, is used to rationalize the economic decision. The exception being that, the more training you get in operating any specific aircraft, the better you'll be at operating that aircraft. So, why bother with the Cessna hours at all? Why not start training in the big iron right up front? Economics maybe?

PPL and CPL will always be there because pilots have their own purpose of flying. Some wants to fly as a hobby, leisure etc etc. Yet some, wants to fly directly to the airlines.

Take PPL out of the equation. We're talking about CPL v MPL. And there are a lot of "commercial" and "airline" jobs that don't use the two approved aircraft. Again, the MPL, especially self-sponsored, is so restrictive.

Some say that they will NEVER fly with an MPL pilot as their F/O because of their lack of experience. But when this MPL pilot reaches 1500 in 2-3years, then they're no different with an CPL/ATPL pilot.

I'll bring up ZFT's point, too, here. Where does an MPL get the requisite PIC and PIC XC time for the ATP? It's not just a matter of 1500 TT. How many national interpretations of "PIC under supervision" will there be? About as many as there are for English Proficiency Level 6?

You cannot say 100% that a CPL holder with 3000 hours of Cessna flying in his belt is a better F/O than a 230 hour MPL holder (70hours cessna, 60hours Multicrew coordination training, 100hours Level D equipment based trained).

If I look at the logbook, and examine those 3000 hours, I may very well come to that conclusion.

Does the MPL know how to operate the Airbus or Boeing? Yes. Can the CPL holder with 3000 hours of Cessna be taught to operate the Boeing to the same proficiency standard with about 25 hours of FPD and Level D sim training? Again, yes.

Primarily because, there are CPL holder who flunks airline training. Why? because its a totally different environment.

You've conveniently ignored the fact that there are thousands of CPL holders who have PASSED airline training. Which brings up the question of selection. The military and the major-carrier sponsored ab initio programs have rigid pre-screening processes in place. That's one of the keys to making this work, and in the European programs, the carrier sponsors implemented a process, similar to their ab initio. How does that actually work with a "self-sponsored" MPL in an organization whose primary revenue source is flight training? We'll ignore the well-connected father and tons-of-money screening bypasses for now.

You also need to reconsider your definition of "environment." Everyone flies in the same weather and airspace. That's the environment of reality. I'm very worried that you would consider the ops manual that you fly under as your "environment."

In my opinion, General Aviation training is totally different from Airline LOFT and Base training. CPL pilots and MPL cadets are on the level playing field when they start training for the airline environment.

There are plenty of multi-crew "general aviation" aircraft. High-performance, turbojet, complex systems, type ratings required, etc. Do you think your 320/737 training is somehow superior to that? Don't know how the regs in your country are divvied up, but in FAA-land Part 135 carriers are AOC holders, just like the 119's and 121's (airlines). Do you think that folks don't have to "fly by the rulebook" in those operations? And what about the 125 operators? "General aviation" on the same equipment as an MPL.

CPL pilots are ahead of MPL cadets when they start training for the airline environment. MPL candidates start at 0 hours. CPL's have at least a minimal amount of PIC time. They know how to control an aircraft, and hopefully have done enough airwork and had experiences to sharpen some of those "between the ears" skills that make a PIC. Remember, there are two people sitting up front for a couple of reasons. With a PIC incapacitated, you're now single-pilot, same as the Cessna driver. What happens then when it all goes tits-up, and all of that MCC training is worthless?

For a positive discussion, I ask those who are in the PPL and CPL/IR, give any experiences or lessons that you have encountered that will be impossible for an MPL pilot to learn throughout his training. Thanks.

Stolen from a Rumors & News thread: fear of death and destruction in making a go-around decision in hairy weather. You can simulate the conditions, but not the visceral reaction of fear.

Night single-pilot IMC xcountry into unforecast icing, with a vacuum pump failure. Pick your own instrument failure set, with an unconscious captain, and aircraft is FIKI-prohibited.

Actual determining factor for maximum crosswind velocity on landing. (Hint: It's not in your flight or ops manual).

[Bagoongathipon]

You've conveniently ignored the fact that there are thousands of CPL holders who have PASSED airline training.

Thats my point. Indeed there are many who passed, but there are also those who flunked airline training. Whats the reason behind this? What happens to the years and thousands of flight hours?

You also need to reconsider your definition of "environment." Everyone flies in the same weather and airspace. That's the environment of reality. I'm very worried that you would consider the ops manual that you fly under as your "environment."

HAHAHA! Ok ok, your only definition of environment is the weather and airspace. Maybe its not in your definition the "Multicrew environment?!" "Procedural based environment?! "Airline environment?!" These "environments" are some causes why even experienced CPL holders also flunk!. Now Im very worried that you would consider your evironment to be just the weather and airspace!

If I look at the logbook, and examine those 3000 hours, I may very well come to that conclusion.

Does the MPL know how to operate the Airbus or Boeing? Yes. Can the CPL holder with 3000 hours of Cessna be taught to operate the Boeing to the same proficiency standard with about 25 hours of FPD and Level D sim training? Again, yes.

Yes. You still have to examie the logbook and what kind of 3000hours did that pilot do. 2980hours of visual flight, 20hours of instrument flight, 10hours of multiengine? <-- thats even a lower level of experience compared to a 180hour instrument flight mpl training.

There are plenty of multi-crew "general aviation" aircraft. High-performance, turbojet, complex systems, type ratings required, etc. Do you think your 320/737 training is somehow superior to that? Don't know how the regs in your country are divvied up, but in FAA-land Part 135 carriers are AOC holders, just like the 119's and 121's (airlines). Do you think that folks don't have to "fly by the rulebook" in those operations? And what about the 125 operators? "General aviation" on the same equipment as an MPL.

another problem is you talk as if ALL CPL holders have these experience. How about a 500 flight hour with 20hours of instrument and 10hours of multiengine? This is a sample of a minimum requirement of an airline. These are what I am comparing to. Got the point?

CPL pilots are ahead of MPL cadets when they start training for the airline environment. MPL candidates start at 0 hours. CPL's have at least a minimal amount of PIC time. They know how to control an aircraft, and hopefully have done enough airwork and had experiences to sharpen some of those "between the ears" skills that make a PIC. Remember, there are two people sitting up front for a couple of reasons. With a PIC incapacitated, you're now single-pilot, same as the Cessna driver. What happens then when it all goes tits-up, and all of that MCC training is worthless?

Haha.. its that your definition of MCC? 2pilots flying? Ours is different. 1 or more pilots + cabin crew + passengers + ATC + hardwares + softwares. See the difference? Because you have a narrow definition of things. Just as narrow as a cessna? You are proud of you can control the aircraft and airworks but your environment is narrow.

Now dont bring out the question "What can the cabin cew, pax, atc, softwares and hardwares do when my captain is incapacitated?" That will just mean how narrow is your perspective.

Take PPL out of the equation. We're talking about CPL v MPL. And there are a lot of "commercial" and "airline" jobs that don't use the two approved aircraft. Again, the MPL, especially self-sponsored, is so restrictive.

Indeed it is restricitve. Thats how it goes when you're training specific. Just like taking up BS Bioinformatics rather than BS biology! It has its pros and cons.

Stolen from a Rumors & News thread: fear of death and destruction in making a go-around decision in hairy weather. You can simulate the conditions, but not the visceral reaction of fear.

Night single-pilot IMC xcountry into unforecast icing, with a vacuum pump failure. Pick your own instrument failure set, with an unconscious captain, and aircraft is FIKI-prohibited.

Actual determining factor for maximum crosswind velocity on landing. (Hint: It's not in your flight or ops manual)

You are too proud of these conditions as if all CPL has already encountered these in real life! I can count 20 pilots who hasnt. Heck, I even know of a 20,000hour captain of an airline hasnt encountered these! So dont give me these conditions because, when it comes... we are all in the level playing field!

[subsonic69]

hmmm

for the price ????


i would have to say study abroad .... get a better recognition for your rating and so on .. thats just me i guess

[cncalpha]

Where is Matt Wood these days? According to the GM he was fired out of CA, is that so? He was a great teacher. Could anyone elaborate as his # does not ring.

[cncalpha]

Got the info of MW. Thanks out there.

[Glafto]

Cncalpha

How close are you to the GM? Are you sure the GM told you he was fired or you are just spreading lies again?