Multi Crew Pilot Licenses

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Well I take back the CFI part, I thought from another thread you never got 'em.

From your past comment though are you implying that you would rather have a JetU grad in the right seat then a 135 freight dog?

No, not at all. As I said in a previous post, I would rather have someone that went through a properly-designed MPL program (per ALPA's specs) than a typical 1000 hour CFI, though. ALPA's stance on MPL is simply related to creating a new style of training that properly prepares pilots to be 121 copilots. The current training style isn't ideal, and neither is the indusry-supported MPL program. ALPA's proposal with strict controls, minimum required actual flight time, and direct ties to an airline, would be a much better alternative to the other options that have been put out there, including the current part 61 and 141 programs.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Why not just make it easy and hire computer programers? Or even better, I know quite a few kids that have a couple hundred hours in the RJ on FSX, I even bet that they would pay like 50 bucks to sit in the right seat and then tell you all the ways that you're screwing up.


This isnt really directed at you or anyone else, just a rant.

I fail to see how getting in a plane and pressing buttons is considered "aviating." Sure, you're in the air, but when the correct sequences can be learned in a box, with absolutely no stick and rudder skill required, I think at some point we're not pilots any more, just systems engineers.

Flying a CRJ (or ERJ, Avro, 737, etc...) is a bit more than just pushing buttons. That's just the ridiculous stereotype.

I think everyone should ask themselves, did you get into this industry to sit on your leather ass and draw a paycheck, or did you do it because you were in love with aviation.

Both. I like flying, and I like a good paycheck. Why does it have to be one or the other? I enjoy airline flying, but I don't enjoy GA flying. For you, flying 135 or crop dusting is more fun, but for many of us, it's not.

Do you consider the glory days TWA and Pan am, or barnstormers and dogfights?

The former.

If someone told you right now that the most you would ever make as a pilot was 50k a year, would you stick in it, or go become a nurse?

I'd go back to school and become an attorney, like our good friend jtrain has done. I like flying, but not enough to only make $50k for the rest of my life.

And how come, do we all work so long and hard, for something we supposedly love, just to do less of it.

Because in the end, it is a job. Flying 800 hours a year gets tiring. It's a bit different than flying for fun. Trust me, 10 years from now you'll be trying to fly less and make more, just like the rest of us.

 

[C150J]

Why not just make it easy and hire computer programers? Or even better, I know quite a few kids that have a couple hundred hours in the RJ on FSX, I even bet that they would pay like 50 bucks to sit in the right seat and then tell you all the ways that you're screwing up.


This isnt really directed at you or anyone else, just a rant.

I fail to see how getting in a plane and pressing buttons is considered "aviating." Sure, you're in the air, but when the correct sequences can be learned in a box, with absolutely no stick and rudder skill required, I think at some point we're not pilots any more, just systems engineers.

If the pay for a crop duster and a 777 captain were swapped, do you think people would be banging down the doors of crop dusting schools? I doubt it. Going out there in an air tractor a spraying requires a good bit of balls and a good bit of skill, some of it that probably cant be learned. How many 20 year olds do you see crop dusting, and how many on RJ's? I rest my case.

I think everyone should ask themselves, did you get into this industry to sit on your leather ass and draw a paycheck, or did you do it because you were in love with aviation.

Do you consider the glory days TWA and Pan am, or barnstormers and dogfights?

If someone told you right now that the most you would ever make as a pilot was 50k a year, would you stick in it, or go become a nurse?

And how come, do we all work so long and hard, for something we supposedly love, just to do less of it.

I completely agree. However, to ATN's defense, I think he is supporting the renovation of our flight training system, not lack of experience. Right now, our system of primary training is a JOKE in terms of uniformity and thoroughness. Some schools produce a great pilot, some have the potential to, while others are "drive-thru" in nature. Ground school is incredibly weak at a moderate number of schools, who depend on a do-it-yourself approach. We really do need a better system.

That being said, I would wager that ANY time in ANY airplane makes a better pilot than someone who is taught to run flows, QRHs, and profiles that, save for hard IFR days, never translate to the real world. I think the further we all get from being a primary student, the less respect we have for ourselves and skill sets. We make it look easy and even trick ourselves sometimes.

 

[jhugz]

Flying a CRJ (or ERJ, Avro, 737, etc...) is a bit more than just pushing buttons. That's just the ridiculous stereotype.

I wish J-Train was hear to talk about the time he lectured me on how the Jungle Jet was a joke to fly compared to the Chieftain at Ameriflight.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Here's ALPA's brand new comprehensive white paper on training problems and recommendations: http://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/ProducingProfessionalPilot_9-2009.pdf

 

[C150J]

I wish J-Train was hear to talk about the time he lectured me on how the Jungle Jet was a joke to fly compared to the Chieftain at Ameriflight.

I've flown both (CRJ, not ERJ), have flown helicopters, and have flown turboprops. EVERY airplane has its challenges. To say that one is tougher than another is a broad generalization. From talking to John, I think he would agree that, at the 121 level, it's the decision-making that will kill you, not the stick and rudder aspect.

 

[jhugz]

This is again an opinion of someone on the outside looking in:

It absolutely amazes me how the Fed's just took a dump on GS (this isn't a shot at anyone) which is basically from what I can tell a MCPL deal in which you get 250 hrs. of flight time in the airplane compared to the 140 that ALPA is supporting.

 

[jhugz]

it's the decision-making that will kill you, not the stick and rudder aspect.

So then explain to me how sim time & being babysat by the CA > real world CFI/135 exp.

 

[C150J]

So then explain to me how sim time & being babysat by the CA > real world CFI/135 exp.

It's not, I agree with you... check out my posts. All I'm saying is that a more uniform primary training system needs to be put into place.

 

[Polar742]

Here's what it comes down to...

You have this magical "1500 hour minimum". Let's look at some stereotypical pilots for the discussion who will apply for jobs at the magical minimum (which in my mind is alot like car insurance dropping when a guy turns 24).

You have pilot A, a 1500 hour military pilot. A 1500 hour military pilot has survived an education program that a) is designed to weed people out and b) is the product of a highly regarded training program.

You have pilot B, a 1500 hour pilot with a professional Aviation degree from a top-flight Aviation University like Purdue, ERAU or UND. These individuals aren't from a program that "weeds" people out, but you acquire a huge toolbox of aviation knowledge that is not purely GA-centric. For example, at Purdue, in the 2nd two years, you study the intricacies of bleed, hydraulic, fuel and electrical systems, advanced/long-range navigation, powerplants, high speed aero theory. Now, I was once a 500 hour wonder, and the only FO in class with 6 Captains, who I have high regard for. Who was explaining the back systems? Me. Merely because learning to pass an oral and information on how stuff works, and what it is, has no bearing on most classes. In addition to the technical stuff, you have in depth study (usually by the individuals that write the books you buy to study at home) on physiology and Human Factors as well.

You have pilot C, a 1500 hour pilot from an "academy", which typically is a non-accredited school that takes large checks from people and kicks them out in 6-10 mos. The pilots are kicked out with little more than minimal knowledge than what's required for the ratings, then kept on as CFIs until placed with an airline that has a bridge course. (I will say, FlightSafety Vero and PanAm turned out excellent folks).

You have pilot D, a 1500 hour guy that came from the FBO/General training route. You could have an individual that has had excellent training by excellent instructors, or someone that learned to fly at Bob's Fly and Fish. Unless you know the specific FBO, you have no idea of the quality of that training.

While you will not hear me argue that experience is a bad thing, you won't hear me say, with the current system for primary training in place, that a FBO guy or an "academy grad" is on par with an equal time military or university aviation grad.

If you had to choose, and all your candidates from the civilian sector had time as a CFI and flying 135, you can't tell me that they are equal.

I'm not saying that the person that learned at the FBO isn't a top flight pilot either, but in a quick call like an interview, there's alot of information to garner whether that training was quality or run-of-the-mill.

The "academy" grads...hurmph. Sorry, they spent too much money.

As for the 500 hour college guy vs. the 2000 hour FBO trained freight guy, I'll agree with ATN. There is a tradeoff to look at.

Excellent stick and rudder doesn't necessarily make you a great airline pilot (from the perspective of systems knowledge, management of the cockpit, or other duties that are typically not trained in the GA sector), and being a 500 hour wonder with a large bit of academic knowledge but little practical experience doesn't guarantee a great airline pilot either.

Just remember, this low time pilot stuff has really only happened twice. Once when the big props were replaced by jets, and then when the commuter props were replaced by jets. Other than that, civilian pilots typically had a solid academic background, then gained practical experience, only being allowed access to the crappiest airline jobs after becoming a well-rounded pilot.

Which brings me back to the importance of a solid academic foundation (as it's been pointed out, why pay lots of money to learn to fly? It's the advanced knowledge and theory that's important for the academic background) to make the practical experience more relavent and preparing a well-rounded pilot for a career [series of jobs today.].

 

[USMCmech]

Here's my plan for MCPL. It borrows heavily on the training model for Doctors, and the reality of millitary flight training.

MCPL certificates can only be earned at a small number of colleges. These schools would be quasi service acadamies much like the Merchant Marine Academy is. They would combine a bachleors degree with flight training. Standards to be admited, and to advance would be very high, and washing out 25% of the class would be considered normal.

After graduating from one of these acadamies, you would fly first as a relief pilot on long haul flights for say 6 months. Then you would fly a 1900 with a "Training Captain" for 2-3 years. These "Training Capts" would be senior pilots who are specificly trained to mentor and teach new pilots in the "real world" of flying on the line.

"Training Captains" would be VERY senior pilots, and would be WELL compensated for the challenges of flying and teaching brand new pilots.

If something like this came to pass, then I'd be OK with it. I don't ever see a time when the airlines are willing to spend the kind of money it would take to create such a system.



Unfortuantely here is what I'm VERY afraid will actually happen. It's basicly what happend in 06-07, only worse.

MCPL passes.

ATP, ERAU, FSA, ect, all create "Zero to Hero" programs to meet the new lower standard. These schools only teach the test, and new pilots get into the cockpit of RJs with even less time than before.

Since airlines have a large supply of kids who can only work at a 121 airline, they lower starting pay even more and/or all create PFT programs.

These FOs upgrade to Capt, and are in command of an airplane for the first time in their lives. However, instead of flying by themselves in a C-172, it's a jet and there are 50 people riding behind them.

 

[ppragman]

Here's my plan for MCPL. It borrows heavily on the training model for Doctors, and the reality of millitary flight training.

MCPL certificates can only be earned at a small number of colleges. These schools would be quasi service acadamies much like the Merchant Marine Academy is. They would combine a bachleors degree with flight training. Standards to be admited, and to advance would be very high, and washing out 25% of the class would be considered normal.

After graduating from one of these acadamies, you would fly first as a relief pilot on long haul flights for say 6 months. Then you would fly a 1900 with a "Training Captain" for 2-3 years. These "Training Capts" would be senior pilots who are specificly trained to mentor and teach new pilots in the "real world" of flying on the line.

"Training Captains" would be VERY senior pilots, and would be WELL compensated for the challenges of flying and teaching brand new pilots.

If something like this came to pass, then I'd be OK with it. I don't ever see a time when the airlines are willing to spend the kind of money it would take to create such a system.



Unfortuantely here is what I'm VERY afraid will actually happen. It's basicly what happend in 06-07, only worse.

MCPL passes.

ATP, ERAU, FSA, ect, all create "Zero to Hero" programs to meet the new lower standard. These schools only teach the test, and new pilots get into the cockpit of RJs with even less time than before.

Since airlines have a large supply of kids who can only work at a 121 airline, they lower starting pay even more and/or all create PFT programs.

These FOs upgrade to Capt, and are in command of an airplane for the first time in their lives. However, instead of flying by themselves in a C-172, it's a jet and there are 50 people riding behind them.

I'd be very much in favor of that. Too bad it won't happen.

 

[29.92inHg]

In the 135/CFI world there are people who have come from all of the different training varieties that may want to work their way into an airline seat. If the airlines just hire and train with tougher standards, washing more people out at the training level, I would think that the "1500 hour CFI's" and Cargo Guys or Gals would have the experience that could lend a contributing hand in an tough situation with passengers on board. It would be much easier (and cheaper) to slightly enhance training in the current system than to create another entirely different system that produces pilots with no practical experience and has Captains having nothing more than a warm body in the seat next to them.

Not every real life situation has been seen, or can be practiced in a simulator to the effect of creating these "super 121 pilots" with the MPL. A longer training regimine of currently experienced pilots could weed out the people that have not been weeded out, and find the good pilots that come from all different training worlds. Its called good hiring practice.

In the interest of disclosure, I am one of those "CFI's". I hope that my tradecraft I have been working on isn't lumped into generalizations that I am a less capable pilot than those that could be raised through an MPL.

The Airlines should feel responsible to not take everyone who walks through the door, Just give us a shot, and pick the best candidate. I think all of this is overcomplicating things.

My 2 cents,

 

[Trip7]

Here's my plan for MCPL. It borrows heavily on the training model for Doctors, and the reality of millitary flight training.

MCPL certificates can only be earned at a small number of colleges. These schools would be quasi service acadamies much like the Merchant Marine Academy is. They would combine a bachleors degree with flight training. Standards to be admited, and to advance would be very high, and washing out 25% of the class would be considered normal.

After graduating from one of these acadamies, you would fly first as a relief pilot on long haul flights for say 6 months. Then you would fly a 1900 with a "Training Captain" for 2-3 years. These "Training Capts" would be senior pilots who are specificly trained to mentor and teach new pilots in the "real world" of flying on the line.

"Training Captains" would be VERY senior pilots, and would be WELL compensated for the challenges of flying and teaching brand new pilots.

If something like this came to pass, then I'd be OK with it. I don't ever see a time when the airlines are willing to spend the kind of money it would take to create such a system.



Unfortuantely here is what I'm VERY afraid will actually happen. It's basicly what happend in 06-07, only worse.

MCPL passes.

ATP, ERAU, FSA, ect, all create "Zero to Hero" programs to meet the new lower standard. These schools only teach the test, and new pilots get into the cockpit of RJs with even less time than before.

Since airlines have a large supply of kids who can only work at a 121 airline, they lower starting pay even more and/or all create PFT programs.

These FOs upgrade to Capt, and are in command of an airplane for the first time in their lives. However, instead of flying by themselves in a C-172, it's a jet and there are 50 people riding behind them.

Just my opinion but your program idea is WAY too long. 2-3 years flying the 1900 with a training captain? 1900 flying is much closer to GA flying than 121 jet ops. Training a MPL student for 2-3 years in an aircraft that is certified for single pilot ops is a complete waste of resources. I'm sorry but your training proposal sounds like it came from someone with a heavy GA background but little to no 121 jet experience.

 

[C150J]

but little to no 121 jet experience.

Like you? TOTALLY ribbing on you. However, flying "green needles (no FMS)" with no autopilot along PILOT NAV STARS will make you a better aviator, establishing a strong foundation of skills/knowledge that most generally won't appreciate going right into a jet.

Why do I say "most?" Marcus, you might not realize it, but you're an outlier. There are a TON of low-time guys that don't give a hoot about this stuff, don't learn any more than the minimum, and will make it their life goal just to skate by. They don't participate in any more than they have to. Throw one of those guys into a category D jet with a captain with the same attributes and I guarantee you that safety has been compromised.

Although probably not plausible USMC's idea would weed those people out of the seat, and would serve as a vetting process before becoming more responsible. Now, if we could institute a training program that would do the same, I'm all for it.


Again, no knock on you.

 

[WacoFan]

I am just a goof with no 121 aspirations. I do fly commercial a lot. I personally would like to know that someone up front can do a chandelle, lazy 8, a spin and would really like them to have been upside down before as well as flown taildraggers. But I am weird that way.

 

[Mike H]

This is the worst idea, I have ever heard of in my life... ever... and I mean ever.

Every time I say that, somebody comes up with something even dumber

 

[mrivc211]

YES!!

Because during those hours he has gained EXPERIANCE. He has taken off in crosswinds, he has dealt with mechanical problems, he has made mistakes, he has scared himself, he has mastered the art of flying, and a hundred other things that can never be taught in a classroom or simulator.

This argument proves the saying, "If I have to explain, you'll never understand".

We gotta start making a list of people who get it and those who don't.

 

[derg]

Honest question for you then. Does 1000 hours of dual given in a 172 help with the judgment of the problems you listed? You have to deal with where to get around thunderstorms, where is the ice, and various other stuff. We don't deal with that in most GA airplanes. If there is a thunderstorm, we sit on the ground, and wait. If there is ice, we sit and wait. A lot of the stuff that would be beneficial to train on for airline flying isn't practical to be taught in 95% or more of the GA airplanes.

Depends on the level of flight instruction. If you're out teaching steep turns and ground reference manuevers, perhaps not.

However, the skills that I learned when I started upper-level stuff like teaching instruments in the SF Bay area and doing multi-engine instruction, that was probably some of the best background to have prior to going to a commuter.

You're learning to work in the ATC system, learning (and teaching) about weather and making a lot of go/no-go decisions.

Multi-engine flight instruction, especially instrument training in a multi-engine aircraft was a great foundation to start.

There really isn't a pill for experience and judgement. The accountants and MBA's still haven't figured that out.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Depends on the level of flight instruction. If you're out teaching steep turns and ground reference manuevers, perhaps not.

However, the skills that I learned when I started upper-level stuff like teaching instruments in the SF Bay area and doing multi-engine instruction, that was probably some of the best background to have prior to going to a commuter.

You're learning to work in the ATC system, learning (and teaching) about weather and making a lot of go/no-go decisions.

Multi-engine flight instruction, especially instrument training in a multi-engine aircraft was a great foundation to start.

There really isn't a pill for experience and judgement. The accountants and MBA's still haven't figured that out.

Thanks for the response. It interesting to see what everyone thinks on this, and how varied that the opinions are on it.