Multi-Crew Pilot License, Anybody?
 

So, gang, what do y'all think of the MPL?
For those of you who aren't familiar, the Multi-Crew Pilot License is an ICAO initiative that's very similar to ab-initio training in other countries. New pilots would be trained from day one to operate in a crew environment on a transport category aircraft, with a significant amount of flying done in a simulator. Holders of an MPL would not be allowed to fly outside of a crew environment (no $100 hamburger trips) unless they picked up an ASEL/AMEL ticket.

I'd love to be a subcontractor training all these guys. $$!!

It seems to me that the ability to fly effectively in a single-pilot environment is just as important as flying in a crew environment. I'd be a little leary of it.

Scared Poopless of MPL. I learned what I know about flying by damn near killing myself on many an occasion in a single-engine aircraft! Wouldn't trade that for the world!

What happens if the Captain becomes incapacitated? I wouldn't want to be in the back of that plane.

sounds like a stupid idea

Amen! Let's take a guy that's never made a single-pilot decision in his life, and give him his first opportunity to do so when he's got a full-boat of souls on board!

Oh come on, vectors to a coupled ILS approach wouldn't be that hard.

The foriegners have a better chance of making it work than we do...they are used to low-timers in airliners, and their screening requirements for pilot candidates are usually quite high (this doesn't replace experience, but it's better than nothing).

It'll be the death of our profession (what is left of it). Flying airplanes will become a trade that will be hired off the street. The only thing worse than 250 hour pilots for dealing with management are ab-initios who know absolutely nothing else.

I think like it or not it is going to be the future of the airlines (at least for many foreign airlines). Not many countries have a vast general aviation industry like the united states or a huge military to supply pilots and not many governments are going to want thier airlines to hire too many americans.

Boeing is one of the backers of this. I think it will be happening soon, but not in the US, here people will pay for thier own training.

Can't remember if it's been adopted overseas yet or not, but it's already been rumored and the FAA had been looking into it for the U.S.

Truth of the matter is the airlines are freaked out by that "pilot-shortage" that is always over the next hill, but it seems that they're attempting to do something about it, which says there might actually be something to this shortage they're predicting. It would create a quick way for them to supplement the number of available pilots, it'll increase costs (if they had to pay for it) but, if that's the cost of operating, so be it in their case. The other option is to fight for the remaining pilot supply whatever way you can (incentives, benefits, pay) which would be great for the industry from our standpoint, unless the companies all start folding left and right...with the current legal system, that'll push the industry further into ruin, as they drop our benefits, pay, and lifestyle again just to stay afloat.

I don't think it's a good idea. Sounds like a marketing scam just for someone to make money. Especially with some low-time pilots they look to the captain for many decisions to be made. Now imagine this low-time pilot who has always had someone else there with them. I am a low-time pilot myself and am trying to be the FO that helps offer a solution and is not always Captain dependent. That would be kind of hard for someone to do if they have always flown with someone to walk them through any problem they encounter.

Here is the issue as far as I'm concerned. At least now the low time pilots (I was one when I got hired) at least were solo and PIC for some little bit. They were in the plane, by themselves, and had to make some kind of decision that no one else would correct for them.

These MPL pilots will have never have even acted as a PIC or been in a plane by themselves, so they won't even know any better. They will have always have had the security blanket next to them. Their first decison they ever make will be with a bunch of people depending on them. That is scary.

But hey I have been living the "High Life" for the last 4 hours and watching football with friends, so I may not be thinking clearly,

Why does somebody that cant fly a C150 think they have any business flying an airliner with peoples lives in their hands???

If you were living the high life for four hours, you weren't thinking clearly to start with. :p

Why does somebody who can fly a C150 think they have any business flying an airliner with peoples lives in their hands ?

Lots of people learn to fly in multi engine jet aircraft.

You're joking, right?

I was trained overseas and while all of our training was initially done with single pilot flying in mind (because a Seneca is not a multi-crew airplane) it was done with the intention that everyone in the program would be working for an airline.

Crew incapacitation is one of the major tenets of the airline training over there and is covered from day one. I have never seen it addressed in the US.

Not everything done in the US is the best or only way of doing something. Our training over there was not exclusively Multi-Crew training, but the MCC (Multi-Crew Concept) was a big deal. CRM is much deeper than just "Don't be a jerk", which is how it is addressed here.

Well gee why dont you go fly there then......

Seriously though, broad assertions like yours that CRM is only addressed in that way are just plain stupid.

No, I am not.

I did fly there 'til I was furloughed 4 years ago. Got recalled but turned it down because I upgraded here.

Anyway, while my company is a good one now in many ways, CRM was addressed, litterally, in our Indoc class with, "Don't be an @$$hole". That hardly constitutes CRM training. And I doubt it's much better at other 'regionals' where a lot of the training is under duress and is often 'home study' anyway.

I know that it's better at major airlines and I suspect in the military as well. But the regionals' concept of what constitutes CRM has a long way to go to match.

As far as Multi-Crew training, I stand by what I said.

Truely what is CRM? For me the way you learn CRM is performance based. This is where policies and procedures are integreted into scenerio's in sim training. Sure you have that 1-3 hr classroom presentation about what CRM is, but you don't truely learn or utilize it until your on the flightdeck.

As far a MCL goes, this may bode well for other countries. But this would be a slap in the face, DIVE to the bottom for U.S. pilots. I hope the unions are watching this subject, because if they don't address this they'll never get compensation back to where it needs to be.

MCPL.......looks to me to be a pilot factory PFT product's wet dream.

This concept of training pilots from zero is not unprecedented. Military pilots are all trained like that.

Second, major airlines used to advertise for pilots with private certificates and even candidates with no experience.

Think outside the box.

yes, back in the 60s, when there were no pilots left from WWII and Korea to hire, and the Nam vets hadn't started flying in the jungle yet. there was no supply, so the result was ab initio.

now there is a supply of pilots, so there is no need for that here.

and if you mean intl airlines CRM is better, i'm not sure how "keep your piehole shut, i'm the captain!" constitutes better CRM (see KLM Tenerife)

That was the '70s. I can assure you it is different nowadays exactly because of accidents like that and in particular that accident.

Also, it's not much different today in some airplanes.

We had one (who is thankfully no longer with our company) who told the F/O he was flying when the F/O was still in diapers. That was when he basically closed the whole NYC airspace because of his own incompetence.

Anyway, thankfully the whole concept of CRM and what it is has improved a lot in the past 20 years.

Oh, and FWIW, even though my aviation roots are in Europe, I still think the US has the safest aviation there is. But there are still things we can learn from them. And them from us.

I whole heartedly agree saab2000. We should definitely use the U.S military's pilot training as a great example of how to do things. But guess what? the multi-crew license isn't anywhere close to being like the military's ab initio training.

In the military pilots are trained from day one (after an extreme screening process) to be pilots, not a part of a crew. They train with an instructor and are taught to operate the aircraft on their own and then get cut loose to solo just like almost any other student pilot. Once they complete their initial training and are competent aviators the ones who will be flying in crew environments are then trained with emphasis on the crew concept. Every pilot in the military (besides being an officer) is an aviator first, they just happen to either be flying a C-5 or an F-16. Both pilots can and do operate as individual pilots.

Being trained from day 1 as an airline pilot is great, if all you ever do is fly airlines. But what happens when sh*t really hits the fan? crm goes out the window when the captain is dead because some kind of huge bird came through the windscreen. Somehow it also affected the autopilot. What now? You actually have to fly the airplane, and do everything yourself, not call for the things you want. Every airline pilot should have a good foundation of basic stick and rudder, seat of the pants flying to fall back on, just in case. You will NOT gte that kind of training in some "fast track" airline program.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...ad.php?t=17434

Yea lets not equate some MPL lic program to that which US Military and many foreign military pilots go thru. And before I get flamed let me state that I in NO way infer that military training or civilian training is better...its simply different. I will say that I believe that military training gets pilots up and trained to a higher level earlier... but after years of flying and training I think the playing field is leveled. In my opinion the main difference is that mil guys are generally exposed to much more complex acft earlier and the training programs are extremely structured which helps later in 121 type training programs.

One thing I think we call all be certain of is that any new program introduced in the USA will be forced to absolutely minimize costs (while boosting profits for the providers). It will be full of paperwork and boxes to be checked, and light on useful (expensive) training.

I'll say it...military training is far better than civilian training in the US. The end product is the combination of three things...

1) The quality of the trainee.
2) The quality of the training program.
3) The performance standards required of the trainee.

Due to the inherent complexity and hazards of many military missions, trainees are carefully screened. Also since applicants outnumber opportunities, the military can be especially picky (and they are). The only screening in the civilian world is a first class medical and a credit check.

Due to the complexity of the missions and aircraft, and the fact that uncle sam is the sponsor, military training programs have literally millions to spend on an individual pilot's training.

Even with screened trainees and quality training, a large percentage (probably near 50% historical average) wash out due to very high standards and very few opportunities to repeat unsat evolutions.

There is no reason a civilian cannot have a lot of potential, many do. But no civilian program (yes, including riddle) comes anywhere near the military's. Most civilians, regardless of individual potential, are somewhat limited by their lack of experience in high-performance flying...exceptions might be aerobatic, fire-bombers, etc.

However...after many years at an airline the ex-military pilot's performance skills may fade since they are not really used. At that point the flying is more a management and judgement game...so the civilian is probably equally capable. The very few ex-military pilots I know who have had difficulties at airlines all suffered from some sort of attitude problem...either too authoritarian or unable to relax and go with the flow on certain things.