Singapore's Newest Flight School: Scam or the real thing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore's Newest Flight School: Scam or the real thing
On Thursday I was doing a CAAS medical when I met 2 young men, one from Ecuador and another from Singapore, and they were getting ready to dish out US$125,000 +++ 2 years of expenses, to participate in what they told me was Singapore's first MCPL program with ST Aviation Training Academy at Seletar Airport.
Having a son of my own that I hope will also learn the trade when he is old enough and his feet can reach the rudder pedals, I could not resist to talk to them to get more inforamtion.
These young men seem to think for this US$125,000 +++ that they are going to get a Singapore MCPL, something that does not exist and I explained to them that they would probably get Australian MCPL and that it is unlikely the Singapore CAAS will recognize it.
I wanted to be real gentle with them, no one should despair another person's dream in life I say, but they were firm in thinking that the Singapore CAAS would actually issue them the CAAS license and even further advised that they would all hope to eventually fly as First Officer's for Tiger Airways.
Apparently the Director of Training for Tiger Airways, as well as Tamesek Poly, was part of the interview they had with the Singapore Technologies Aviation Training Academy (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
Now is this a scam or is it the real thing for these young hopefuls??? I understand that 50 or so cadets that went through the CPL program in Australia still don't have jobs.
Your thoughts gentlemen... am I wrong to think so... in the middle of a recession no less...
Having a son of my own that I hope will also learn the trade when he is old enough and his feet can reach the rudder pedals, I could not resist to talk to them to get more inforamtion.
These young men seem to think for this US$125,000 +++ that they are going to get a Singapore MCPL, something that does not exist and I explained to them that they would probably get Australian MCPL and that it is unlikely the Singapore CAAS will recognize it.
I wanted to be real gentle with them, no one should despair another person's dream in life I say, but they were firm in thinking that the Singapore CAAS would actually issue them the CAAS license and even further advised that they would all hope to eventually fly as First Officer's for Tiger Airways.
Apparently the Director of Training for Tiger Airways, as well as Tamesek Poly, was part of the interview they had with the Singapore Technologies Aviation Training Academy (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
Now is this a scam or is it the real thing for these young hopefuls??? I understand that 50 or so cadets that went through the CPL program in Australia still don't have jobs.
Your thoughts gentlemen... am I wrong to think so... in the middle of a recession no less...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 3rd house from the left
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told that the MPL is a trial beta program, meaning at any point along the course duration, if the program is not successful, it will revert to the traditional CPL/MEIR issued by the CASA at a cost lower then 125K.
It is true that CAAS and the other relevant agencies are still going through the merits of the MPL.
But yes, if the 2 boys successfully go through the MPL program, there is an offer of employment opportunity at both Tiger Airways and Jetstar as part of the MPL course entails learning the SOPs (either Tiger or Jetstar) for A320 TR course.
It is true that CAAS and the other relevant agencies are still going through the merits of the MPL.
But yes, if the 2 boys successfully go through the MPL program, there is an offer of employment opportunity at both Tiger Airways and Jetstar as part of the MPL course entails learning the SOPs (either Tiger or Jetstar) for A320 TR course.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Home Sweet Home
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When does the MPL multi-crew training phase starts? I heard the facility over at Seletar Airport is a Simulation centre and some of the training phase are held over at Nanjing and Australia Ballart. Can Anyone distinguish how different is the training over at Ballart where ST Aviation trains Pilot trainees CPL/MEIR while the training here is MPL. Are there any significant advantages and disadvantages between them?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it's just me but is the CAAS that close to reviewing the merits of a MCPL that people should just fork out US$125,000 in the middle of a recession no less for an alleged job with 1 of 2 low cost carriers flying 9V aircraft in 2 years time.
Last I heard the CAAS was taking a long wait and see attitude to this whole MCPL. I think there are only 3 or 4 countries doing it right now and North America or Europe is not one of them either.
A few weeks ago, in The Straits Times, we all read about a institution here in Singapore that was licensed to operate by the MOE and it turned out to be nothing more than a Diploma mill and lot's of unsuspecting people lost a lot of money.
Having been flying for over 25 years now, with a son who I also hope will do the same too someday, I worry about this because I would not want it to give aviation, or Asia in general, a bad name.
Not to mention that is backed up by Singapore Technologies too, nothing is infallable!
Last I heard the CAAS was taking a long wait and see attitude to this whole MCPL. I think there are only 3 or 4 countries doing it right now and North America or Europe is not one of them either.
A few weeks ago, in The Straits Times, we all read about a institution here in Singapore that was licensed to operate by the MOE and it turned out to be nothing more than a Diploma mill and lot's of unsuspecting people lost a lot of money.
Having been flying for over 25 years now, with a son who I also hope will do the same too someday, I worry about this because I would not want it to give aviation, or Asia in general, a bad name.
Not to mention that is backed up by Singapore Technologies too, nothing is infallable!
Singapore Flying College were also keen on the MPL at one stage. I don't know whether this is still the case. They did have a Baron-By-Pass program (whereby cadets went straight from flying the C172 direct to the Lear 45) since learning to fly a piston twin had little in common with flying a fast jet. According to a presentation I saw by a training captain from SIA, many 'habits' in flying a piston twin had to be "unlearned" when they get to the Lear stage of their training, thus the reason why the Baron-By-pass program was implemented.
The main reason for introducing the MPL was to fulfill the perceived pilot shortage and train more airline cadet pilots quickly for the right hand seat of a jet, by passing GA altogether. Candidates spend more time in a simulator than they do flying GA training aircraft. Since the pilot shortage is no longer upon us in the industry, the rush for churning out first officers is no longer there.
The main reason for introducing the MPL was to fulfill the perceived pilot shortage and train more airline cadet pilots quickly for the right hand seat of a jet, by passing GA altogether. Candidates spend more time in a simulator than they do flying GA training aircraft. Since the pilot shortage is no longer upon us in the industry, the rush for churning out first officers is no longer there.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: singapore
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To shed some light on this matter, the Singapore Flying College isn't considering the MPL as a viable training option any time soon. The Ops Manager here at Jandakot just confirmed it in a meeting with the cadets less than an hour ago, the primary reason being that MPL trained pilots will require more training (whether Sim/actual flying hours or what a/c type, it wasn't clarified), thus translating to higher costs. Australian experience on this matter was cited.
However, with regards to whether SIA will take in MPL-trained personnel, I haven't a clue. Perhaps someone much higher up the food chain could clarify on this.
The Baron Bypass program is active, with some cadets going this route, and others continuing on with the Baron program. Our understanding of the rationale for this program is exactly as the poster above has stated.
Furthermore, the five most recent CPL/IR ME private cadets who've completed their Baron program are currently employed in non-aviation related jobs, but that's perfectly understandable given the industry's current situation.
However, with regards to whether SIA will take in MPL-trained personnel, I haven't a clue. Perhaps someone much higher up the food chain could clarify on this.
The Baron Bypass program is active, with some cadets going this route, and others continuing on with the Baron program. Our understanding of the rationale for this program is exactly as the poster above has stated.
Furthermore, the five most recent CPL/IR ME private cadets who've completed their Baron program are currently employed in non-aviation related jobs, but that's perfectly understandable given the industry's current situation.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore Flying College were also keen on the MPL at one stage. I don't know whether this is still the case. They did have a Baron-By-Pass program (whereby cadets went straight from flying the C172 direct to the Lear 45) since learning to fly a piston twin had little in common with flying a fast jet. According to a presentation I saw by a training captain from SIA, many 'habits' in flying a piston twin had to be "unlearned" when they get to the Lear stage of their training, thus the reason why the Baron-By-pass program was implemented.
The main reason for introducing the MPL was to fulfill the perceived pilot shortage and train more airline cadet pilots quickly for the right hand seat of a jet, by passing GA altogether. Candidates spend more time in a simulator than they do flying GA training aircraft. Since the pilot shortage is no longer upon us in the industry, the rush for churning out first officers is no longer there.
The main reason for introducing the MPL was to fulfill the perceived pilot shortage and train more airline cadet pilots quickly for the right hand seat of a jet, by passing GA altogether. Candidates spend more time in a simulator than they do flying GA training aircraft. Since the pilot shortage is no longer upon us in the industry, the rush for churning out first officers is no longer there.
This MPL is a sick joke thrown up as a cabbage patch stop gap measure to address shortage of pilots with experience (real experience, not parker pen or MS Flt Sim or Warcraft). The whole thing would actually be funny if we weren't so close to it.
By the way, it used to be an open joke that the CAAS stood for "Committee Against Aviation in Singapore".
Anyone kind enough to explain ? 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tropics
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 3rd house from the left
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't wait to hear from ST about the MPL program.
Just to add: In all fairness, the USD125k consists of the A320 TR course, which i believed to be in the region of USD60k. So actually to a potential trainee who goes through the traditional route and thereafter take on the TR course, USD125k seems about right?
As for the merits of the MPL, do a google search and there will be pros and cons to the program. I am no expert to judge since i'm only a tiny PPL holder self studying for ATPL subjects. But i understand that Lufthansa in Europe is now on MPL so there could be merits to it. And Lufthansa is no fly by nite carrier.
gengis: I understand your predicament. No pilot (or pax for that matter) would wish to fly with someone with no real experience other then in the sim. i stand corrected but suppose this chap pass his sim check ( and i believed it will be a rigorous check ride no doubt) and release for line training, gradually he will gain the real experience of flying the jet as time progresses? it's like learning how to drive a big bus. Nowadays, SBS transit even have their own sim to train the bus captains. Thereafter they are released to the road and have real road experience with the instructor by their side. Isn't it how these bus captains are trained these days? Is there not a similar vein to what the MPL is providing?
cheers
Just to add: In all fairness, the USD125k consists of the A320 TR course, which i believed to be in the region of USD60k. So actually to a potential trainee who goes through the traditional route and thereafter take on the TR course, USD125k seems about right?
As for the merits of the MPL, do a google search and there will be pros and cons to the program. I am no expert to judge since i'm only a tiny PPL holder self studying for ATPL subjects. But i understand that Lufthansa in Europe is now on MPL so there could be merits to it. And Lufthansa is no fly by nite carrier.
gengis: I understand your predicament. No pilot (or pax for that matter) would wish to fly with someone with no real experience other then in the sim. i stand corrected but suppose this chap pass his sim check ( and i believed it will be a rigorous check ride no doubt) and release for line training, gradually he will gain the real experience of flying the jet as time progresses? it's like learning how to drive a big bus. Nowadays, SBS transit even have their own sim to train the bus captains. Thereafter they are released to the road and have real road experience with the instructor by their side. Isn't it how these bus captains are trained these days? Is there not a similar vein to what the MPL is providing?
cheers
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a presentation I saw by a training captain from SIA, many 'habits' in flying a piston twin had to be "unlearned" when they get to the Lear stage of their training
The Baron of course requires better manual flying skills than a Lear - especially with one engine inoperative. That said, there is no doubt the Baron autopilot system is rudimentary compared to that of the Learjet.
With most international operators including Singapore Airlines, manual flying skills - including raw data instrument flying - which was once a pre-requisite to holding any professional pilot's licence, are no longer considered an essential requirement for command in modern airliners. This is why full use of all automatics are encouraged by airliner manufacturers and in flight simulators.
For that reason, by-pass of the Baron direct to Learjet training is understandable -particularly as the accent with many operators is on autopilot management rather than pure flying ability. But to claim that so called "habits" from piston twins have to be unlearned when a student gets to Learjet flying, is nonsense.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gengis, like it or not, but MPL FOs are here and fly. There is a number of reputed airlines in Europe (and soon all over the world) who train their pilots into an airliner without ever gained a PPL or CPL. MPL doesn't mean you don't fly. It consists of a number of hours in light single and twin engined aircraft. Experience has shown that it works. They are still in the beginning, so the way they are teached may still change. But it will come, one way or another.
You wont even tell the difference when you meet your ab initio FO the first time - MPL or conventionel training.
Dani
You wont even tell the difference when you meet your ab initio FO the first time - MPL or conventionel training.
Dani
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani:
Well, like it or not, none of these guys will get any flying from me. Change will come, one way or another - I will do all the flying and unless/until i see that they are up to par AS I EXPECT IT, that's how it will be.
Such guys will only get PM roles, but I wouldn't even bet on their R/T being up to it. They can come out of the 200 hrs in a sim - where the only airplane that ATC needs to talk to is YOU - and i wanna watch them thrown into the deep end at JFK/LAX/LHR.
Yes, change will come... and i'm looking forward to it.
Gengis, like it or not, but MPL FOs are here and fly. There is a number of reputed airlines in Europe (and soon all over the world) who train their pilots into an airliner without ever gained a PPL or CPL. MPL doesn't mean you don't fly. It consists of a number of hours in light single and twin engined aircraft. Experience has shown that it works. They are still in the beginning, so the way they are teached may still change. But it will come, one way or another.
You wont even tell the difference when you meet your ab initio FO the first time - MPL or conventionel training.
You wont even tell the difference when you meet your ab initio FO the first time - MPL or conventionel training.
Such guys will only get PM roles, but I wouldn't even bet on their R/T being up to it. They can come out of the 200 hrs in a sim - where the only airplane that ATC needs to talk to is YOU - and i wanna watch them thrown into the deep end at JFK/LAX/LHR.
Yes, change will come... and i'm looking forward to it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how much you know about MPL, but where I come from, MPL students fly nearly as much on the real training aircraft as did conventional trained ones. The only difference is that:
I fail to see from your post if you are against MPL only or against ab initio trained pilots. I agree that I wouldn't put such a guy right away in a long haul cockpit, but these guys (ab initio that is) fly around in major airlines for the last 4 decades. If you would be trainer in such an airline, you would be given a choise to fly with them or to quit.
I guess your preoccupation comes from the fact that your FOs always where very experienced GA or turboprop regional pilots. I have been ab initio, regional and mainline pilot so I think I can tell the difference.
I don't know where you are flying but also ab initios fly around daily in high density airports and they do a good job. Well, I don't know if you find them in JFK, LAX or ORD, but you certainly find them en masse over LHR, CDG and FRA. And I still have to hear of a report where they failed. imho PM (PNF) role in such environment is much more demanding than PF.
Dani
- they perform airliner oriented training from the beginning
- flying is done in view of future two man cockpit role
- they only do 1 test for a license, that is the one at the end.
I fail to see from your post if you are against MPL only or against ab initio trained pilots. I agree that I wouldn't put such a guy right away in a long haul cockpit, but these guys (ab initio that is) fly around in major airlines for the last 4 decades. If you would be trainer in such an airline, you would be given a choise to fly with them or to quit.
I guess your preoccupation comes from the fact that your FOs always where very experienced GA or turboprop regional pilots. I have been ab initio, regional and mainline pilot so I think I can tell the difference.
I don't know where you are flying but also ab initios fly around daily in high density airports and they do a good job. Well, I don't know if you find them in JFK, LAX or ORD, but you certainly find them en masse over LHR, CDG and FRA. And I still have to hear of a report where they failed. imho PM (PNF) role in such environment is much more demanding than PF.
Dani
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani,
No i am not "anti ab-initio". All of the last 4 major carriers that i have flown for have had ab-initio pilots and i have found little difference between them in the cockpit.
What i do not accept is a pilot training program that reduces actual flying from 230 hours (which though barely minimal, is just about sufficient) to something of the order of 50 hours in an actual airplane (which by the way is the criteria for PPL) while doing the rest in a flight simulator. You will not convince me that 50 hours in a light airplane is anything adequate; for all the "differences" between single-engine pistons & 2-crew jets, there are some constants that are always the same - you pull n the houses get smaller; push n they get bigger... etc. And those goats who are now big-time management pilots talking b-s like "unlearning things" have themselves forgotten that they learned to fly from EXACTLY these same "light airplanes". Very likely, those early habits & lessons that they learned from there has kept them alive until today, to enable them to get to this podium from which they are now talking such crap. But back to the original point - even more so you will not convince me that flying more in the sim will take care of the deficit (of actual flying). Simulators - even the latest Level D ones - do not handle precisely as the real thing does (80-90% is not sufficient fidelity). Simulators all have an element of lag. The feel is not the same as the airplane. Simulators are fine for training a guy to learn his scans, do his procedures & read checklists - not teach flying. We all benefited from simulators during type conversions not because we learned flying from it, but BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNEW HOW TO FLY. The simulators just gave us the chance to practice new procedures in that new airplane type that we were transitioning to.
To tailor a program - and package it up with a nice sounding name - while at the same time severely curtailing a pilot in the development of his flying is IMHO a pathetic failure on the part of people who should know better. First and foremost, Pilots FLY. Things like crew co-ordination & teamwork matters are easily dealt with at the 2nd stage of training. All of a pilot's advance training is built on the premise of a strong & firm foundation in flying. Don't get the cart before the horse. And don't even try to convince me that "oh never mind, if these guys can't handle the airplane properly we'll just train them to push the Autopilot Command button because we've now got Fly-By-Wire". This is a disgraceful cop-out. Pilots FLY, pilots MAKE REAL TIME IN-FLIGHT DECISIONS. It is one thing for the newspapers to try to reduce us to some button-pushing lathe machine operators in the eyes of an unknowing public; it is quite something else for PILOTS & people in the aviation fraternity to try to do it.
Simulators COMPLIMENT experience gained from real airplanes; they do not REPLACE the airplane. If you (or any other MPL believer) truly believe that a simulator is equal or better for experience than the real world - be it the first 200+ hours in light airplanes - then let's see you give your 15-yr old 10 days of intensive training in driving a go-cart and then handing him/her the keys to your Porche 911 Carerra for a spin on the freeway. With you in the passenger seat.
Yes, PM is a demanding task in high density environments. But that's about all they'll get out of the sim really well - learning to scan the overhead panels, read the Normal checklists, recall actions, read & do the QRH Non Normal checklist, do a RECALL check, checking EICAS synoptic pages and selecting gear & flaps. And maybe, calculating RTOW & corrected V-speeds for 1-brake de-activated.
Ab-initio is fine. Qualifying pilots who can't actually fly an airplane is not. That is my contention. And if my company puts one of these half-baked graduates next to me, they are in effect making it a one-man operation for me. OK, 1 1/2 men operation.
No i am not "anti ab-initio". All of the last 4 major carriers that i have flown for have had ab-initio pilots and i have found little difference between them in the cockpit.
What i do not accept is a pilot training program that reduces actual flying from 230 hours (which though barely minimal, is just about sufficient) to something of the order of 50 hours in an actual airplane (which by the way is the criteria for PPL) while doing the rest in a flight simulator. You will not convince me that 50 hours in a light airplane is anything adequate; for all the "differences" between single-engine pistons & 2-crew jets, there are some constants that are always the same - you pull n the houses get smaller; push n they get bigger... etc. And those goats who are now big-time management pilots talking b-s like "unlearning things" have themselves forgotten that they learned to fly from EXACTLY these same "light airplanes". Very likely, those early habits & lessons that they learned from there has kept them alive until today, to enable them to get to this podium from which they are now talking such crap. But back to the original point - even more so you will not convince me that flying more in the sim will take care of the deficit (of actual flying). Simulators - even the latest Level D ones - do not handle precisely as the real thing does (80-90% is not sufficient fidelity). Simulators all have an element of lag. The feel is not the same as the airplane. Simulators are fine for training a guy to learn his scans, do his procedures & read checklists - not teach flying. We all benefited from simulators during type conversions not because we learned flying from it, but BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNEW HOW TO FLY. The simulators just gave us the chance to practice new procedures in that new airplane type that we were transitioning to.
To tailor a program - and package it up with a nice sounding name - while at the same time severely curtailing a pilot in the development of his flying is IMHO a pathetic failure on the part of people who should know better. First and foremost, Pilots FLY. Things like crew co-ordination & teamwork matters are easily dealt with at the 2nd stage of training. All of a pilot's advance training is built on the premise of a strong & firm foundation in flying. Don't get the cart before the horse. And don't even try to convince me that "oh never mind, if these guys can't handle the airplane properly we'll just train them to push the Autopilot Command button because we've now got Fly-By-Wire". This is a disgraceful cop-out. Pilots FLY, pilots MAKE REAL TIME IN-FLIGHT DECISIONS. It is one thing for the newspapers to try to reduce us to some button-pushing lathe machine operators in the eyes of an unknowing public; it is quite something else for PILOTS & people in the aviation fraternity to try to do it.
Simulators COMPLIMENT experience gained from real airplanes; they do not REPLACE the airplane. If you (or any other MPL believer) truly believe that a simulator is equal or better for experience than the real world - be it the first 200+ hours in light airplanes - then let's see you give your 15-yr old 10 days of intensive training in driving a go-cart and then handing him/her the keys to your Porche 911 Carerra for a spin on the freeway. With you in the passenger seat.
Yes, PM is a demanding task in high density environments. But that's about all they'll get out of the sim really well - learning to scan the overhead panels, read the Normal checklists, recall actions, read & do the QRH Non Normal checklist, do a RECALL check, checking EICAS synoptic pages and selecting gear & flaps. And maybe, calculating RTOW & corrected V-speeds for 1-brake de-activated.
Ab-initio is fine. Qualifying pilots who can't actually fly an airplane is not. That is my contention. And if my company puts one of these half-baked graduates next to me, they are in effect making it a one-man operation for me. OK, 1 1/2 men operation.
Last edited by gengis; 27th Aug 2009 at 07:26.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Gengis, for taking your time explaining me your thoughts about pilots training. In fact, I'm not favoring MPL over ab-initio training, but would resist in expressing such rigorous comments about flying with one of them.
I completly agree with you that flying is always more demanding than simulator flying, and that a simulator never can replace the real world.
There are still two different strings of thought in your critic about MPL, one is a fundamental critic over the MPL program and the other the lack of experience of young ab-initios. As I know a lot of MPL *and* ab-initio guys, I can tell you that there is no difference. Quality of every single candidate is much greater, even if kept on the highest standards and rigorous qualification requirements.
When I look back, I started my airline training with about 400h, all of them done on SEL aircraft. I don't think that those hours really made me a better airline pilot. The real training started afterwards. Best training and thus the fundament for every professional pilot is the twin engine IFR flying. And a little bit of high performance aerobatics trainer doesn't hurt. These elements haven't been reduced significantly in MPL training.
We regularly get ab-initio FOs handed over from the training department. They are MPL or conventional trained, and they both have the same problem in the beginning, coming from the complex airline environment and lack of strategical and operational thinking. This gradually becomes better and - after a year or two - they start thinking with you, taking over also complex non-aircraft-related tasks. Compared to FOs with an extensive GA background, I don't see a big difference there. Even with thousands of hours on small planes and experience as GA flight instructors, they do generally not stand out from the ab-inito pilots. Also here, the individual quality of any candidate is much more important than its training background.
I think it also depends on how a flight academy lays out its MPL syllabusses. I don't know the exact legal framework, but I can imagine that there are better MPL courses and not so good ones. And I would imagine that a major airline would not do the absolute minimum laid down in the law. Above mentioned aerobatics trainer pops into my mind.
A general problem I can read between your lines (and I completly agree with it) is the lack of flying expertise of young ab-initios directly upgrading to a fbw computer controlled aircraft. But I guess that is how the future goes, and we cannot go back to the old days of rods and cables. But that is another topic.
Dani
I completly agree with you that flying is always more demanding than simulator flying, and that a simulator never can replace the real world.
There are still two different strings of thought in your critic about MPL, one is a fundamental critic over the MPL program and the other the lack of experience of young ab-initios. As I know a lot of MPL *and* ab-initio guys, I can tell you that there is no difference. Quality of every single candidate is much greater, even if kept on the highest standards and rigorous qualification requirements.
When I look back, I started my airline training with about 400h, all of them done on SEL aircraft. I don't think that those hours really made me a better airline pilot. The real training started afterwards. Best training and thus the fundament for every professional pilot is the twin engine IFR flying. And a little bit of high performance aerobatics trainer doesn't hurt. These elements haven't been reduced significantly in MPL training.
We regularly get ab-initio FOs handed over from the training department. They are MPL or conventional trained, and they both have the same problem in the beginning, coming from the complex airline environment and lack of strategical and operational thinking. This gradually becomes better and - after a year or two - they start thinking with you, taking over also complex non-aircraft-related tasks. Compared to FOs with an extensive GA background, I don't see a big difference there. Even with thousands of hours on small planes and experience as GA flight instructors, they do generally not stand out from the ab-inito pilots. Also here, the individual quality of any candidate is much more important than its training background.
I think it also depends on how a flight academy lays out its MPL syllabusses. I don't know the exact legal framework, but I can imagine that there are better MPL courses and not so good ones. And I would imagine that a major airline would not do the absolute minimum laid down in the law. Above mentioned aerobatics trainer pops into my mind.
A general problem I can read between your lines (and I completly agree with it) is the lack of flying expertise of young ab-initios directly upgrading to a fbw computer controlled aircraft. But I guess that is how the future goes, and we cannot go back to the old days of rods and cables. But that is another topic.
Dani
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani,
The experiences & lessons learned from flying solo - even if it's in a single engine - facing real time situations such as weather closing in at destination on a cross country, or getting lost & subsequently recovering your situational awareness, or making a bad decision about something in the flight.... & recovering from it... these things cannot be quantified. While the normal 230-250 hrs is not much by any measure - it is still a far cry better than making belief in a flight simulator under the direction of an instructor who sits behind running the simulator instructor panel.
You never know how much worse a pilot you might have been if not for those "400 hrs" that you started in the airlines with.
Yes - and i'm willing to bet that this "real" training didn't come from flying flight simulators in lieu of the real airplane.
I'd say the more important issues are of a guy being competent to operate the airplane in First Officer role (SIC). That means 1) Pilot Monitoring (Pilot Not Flying) & 2) Pilot Flying in the event of a role reversal when he/she gets the leg - and being able to do it in worst case scenarios with situations of high workload & pressure. At this juncture this bread n butter stuff is the greater issue than of "strategical and operational thinking" on the company front. The order of business is SAFETY-PAX COMFORT-ECONOMY in this sequence, not the other way around ECONOMY-PAX COMFORT-SAFETY. If he/she can't handle the airplane properly (i say "properly" not "perfectly"), the first prerequisite - SAFETY - is already not met.
Though nobody hopes it happens, if for example the Capt has a incapacitation & the chips were down with the new FO left to his/her own devices, my money is that the ones with "thousands of hours on small planes and experience as GA flight instructors" would be in a far more advantageous situation having a greater bank of experiences, purely by virtue of having been thrown in deep water before - and having survived there. I say "greater" in that 230+ hours is still way more than the 50 hours of the MPL. One learns to walk before he learns to run. By all means add sim time to the syllabus - no issue here - but not at the expense of cutting flying time in a real airplane. No sim can ever instil the kind of survival instincts that come from a real plane.
MPL proponents are trying to do just that - short cut the time into the right seat by cutting corners at the expense of the trainee pilot.
When I look back, I started my airline training with about 400h, all of them done on SEL aircraft. I don't think that those hours really made me a better airline pilot.
You never know how much worse a pilot you might have been if not for those "400 hrs" that you started in the airlines with.
The real training started afterwards.
of strategical and operational thinking.
Compared to FOs with an extensive GA background, I don't see a big difference there. Even with thousands of hours on small planes and experience as GA flight instructors, they do generally not stand out from the ab-inito pilots. Also here, the individual quality of any candidate is much more important than its training background.
Though nobody hopes it happens, if for example the Capt has a incapacitation & the chips were down with the new FO left to his/her own devices, my money is that the ones with "thousands of hours on small planes and experience as GA flight instructors" would be in a far more advantageous situation having a greater bank of experiences, purely by virtue of having been thrown in deep water before - and having survived there. I say "greater" in that 230+ hours is still way more than the 50 hours of the MPL. One learns to walk before he learns to run. By all means add sim time to the syllabus - no issue here - but not at the expense of cutting flying time in a real airplane. No sim can ever instil the kind of survival instincts that come from a real plane.
MPL proponents are trying to do just that - short cut the time into the right seat by cutting corners at the expense of the trainee pilot.
Last edited by gengis; 30th Aug 2009 at 05:46.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Red Dot
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
Isn't Second Officer training supposed to fill in the experience void between 230 hours lighty pilot and of a First Officer?
Where i was trained, i was told piloting is a onward learning job the moment you are given the opportunity at the wheel. In our context, it is a job where the right learns from the left and the left nurtures the right.
Culture clash between an individual and of the company is not unheard of. So, if changing of either is near impossible, why the marriage and to be walking with bitterness?
Just my 5 cents.
WLF
Isn't Second Officer training supposed to fill in the experience void between 230 hours lighty pilot and of a First Officer?
Where i was trained, i was told piloting is a onward learning job the moment you are given the opportunity at the wheel. In our context, it is a job where the right learns from the left and the left nurtures the right.
Culture clash between an individual and of the company is not unheard of. So, if changing of either is near impossible, why the marriage and to be walking with bitterness?
Just my 5 cents.
WLF
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wannabe:
No, you are comparing apples with oranges. A bus moves in 2-dimensions at 50-70 km/hr. And no bus DRIVER has to make any serious decisions - not even how much fuel he should be taking. He slows down when the lights turn amber, stops when they turn red & moves when they turn green. He stops when a commuter flags him down or when a passenger presses the stop button. Something goes wrong with the bus & he pulls over to the side of the road - a luxury that no pilot enjoys.. I trust that i don't need to provide you with a list of 100 decisions & thought processes before & during a flight which a pilot needs to make on a daily basis on an ORDINARY flight with nothing going wrong do I?
There is no "similar vein" between driving a bus & flying an airplane at 86% the speed of sound, other than that both are modes of transport.
Nowadays, SBS transit even have their own sim to train the bus captains. Thereafter they are released to the road and have real road experience with the instructor by their side. Isn't it how these bus captains are trained these days? Is there not a similar vein to what the MPL is providing?
There is no "similar vein" between driving a bus & flying an airplane at 86% the speed of sound, other than that both are modes of transport.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Gengis. When I state that ab-initio FOs have problems in "strategical and operational thinking", then I imply that they can fly. In eighter role, under all circumstances. Otherwise they wouldn't have been checked out. Where I come from, ab-initios are trained, testes and checked until they can handle their aircraft under normal and abnormal condition. They might have problems with cross wind or complex tech problems. Again, it very depends on the individual quality of the candidate. I expect a FO to be able to land an airliner alone in case the captain goes hopps - from day one.
I repeat, I haven't seen any difference between MPL's and conventional ab-initio's in this respect.
A GA-experienced FO doesn't give you the garantee that he will handle the airliner the way he should, if all would fail. In fact, I have witnessed a number of times that they "fall back" into their old GA role if the situation goes hairy.
Also here, a question of the individual quality of the person.
Dani
I repeat, I haven't seen any difference between MPL's and conventional ab-initio's in this respect.
A GA-experienced FO doesn't give you the garantee that he will handle the airliner the way he should, if all would fail. In fact, I have witnessed a number of times that they "fall back" into their old GA role if the situation goes hairy.
Also here, a question of the individual quality of the person.
Dani