The new world.

[Cat Driver]

Had an old friend stay with me last night, he was on a Amsatadam Vancouver Amsterdam flight on the MD11for KLM.

The world of aviation has changed forever, the way of the future for airlines will be the MPL, and from there work your way up the chain of command.

Europe is at a standstill for airline hiring and the cost to get to MPL certification is about $235,000 with no guarantee of empoloyment.

Asia however is hiring.

[180]

Canada's new multi-crew pilot's license (MPL)

Significant changes in personnel licensing and training practices were adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and introduced into Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in 2006.

These involve the expanded use of simulation; the determination of more relevant training standards; and the creation of a new internationally recognized pilot licence called the Multi-crew Pilot Licence (MPL).

Canada was a key player in the review process that led to these initiatives and, accordingly, Transport Canada has introduced a new performance-based regulatory environment to facilitate MPL training.

Closely monitored by Transport Canada, beta-testing of the first MPL training program is now underway. Moncton Flight College is engaged in CAE’s MPL training program involving twelve ab-initio students who have been selected to become First Officers on the Airbus-320 with Air Asia, based out of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia upon graduation.

Early in June saw the convening of the Multi-crew Pilot Licence Advisory Board at Moncton N.B.. The proceedings were well attended by stakeholders from around North America as well as by representatives from ICAO and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The participants were also provided a first-hand look at CAE’s MPL training program at Moncton Flight College.

[180]

More about the MPL

An International Requirement

At the request of the Air Navigation Commission, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) established a Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel (FCLTP) to review ICAO's Annex 1 - Personal Licensing. It consisted of sixty-four participants, including members and observers nominated by eighteen contracting states and five international organizations. This panel was to take into consideration the significant advances in technology and the increased complexities of pilot work environments since the previous review was conducted, some twenty years earlier.

Among the recommendations made by the panel was the need for some directional changes with respect to current licensing practices. This involved the expanded use of simulation, the determination of more relevant training standards, and the creation of a new licensing structure. Those changes are now reflected in Annex 1 and also their Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Training (PANS - TRG) document, which came into effect November 23, 2006. Of particular significance is that this publication provides guidance for the implementation of a new internationally recognized pilot licence called the multi-crew pilot licence (MPL).

Introducing the Multi-crew Pilot Licence in Canada

Transport Canada announced the decision that Canada would proceed with rulemaking for the multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) at the Civil Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council (CARAC) plenary meeting in December 2006. Since the MPL is dependant upon the training being conducted by an approved training organization (ATO), the rulemaking endeavours will include developing the components necessary for the Canadian certification of an ATO.

Transport Canada formed a program implementation team set up to introduce the new Canadian pilot licence. Its mandate is to design the regulatory framework for both the MPL and the process by which flight training institutions gain certification as ATOs. In September 2008, the team received positive feedback from the CARAC technical committee review of the proposed regulatory changes . This technical committee was specially convened to review the changes that are brought about by Canada's decision to adopt ICAO's ATO and MPL rulemaking decisions that were promulgated in late November 2006.

Transport Canada recognizes that such an initiative demands a focused and open communication process, with this document representing a portion of that effort. Furthermore, subject matter experts (SME) from various inter-departmental groups and external stakeholders have been consulted on the matter.

Canada’s Approach

The Canadian multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) will signify that the bearer has successfully undergone a Transport Canada (TC) authorized MPL flight-training program and has demonstrated the Skill, Knowledge and Attitudinal (KSA) competencies to perform the duties of a co-pilot of a multi-engine, turbine-powered, pressurized aeroplane, which is certified to be operated by two or more pilots, flown under either Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions. In other words, an air carrier can employ the licence holder as a first-officer, second officer, or a cruise-relief pilot. That carrier will be one that has sponsored the training of the graduate pilot. There are some caveats and overriding principles governing the initial employment of an MPL holder, which are addressed in the Multi-crew Pilot Licence Program Guide.

Since the construct of MPL training programs will involve variances from one training provider to another, TC has decided to apply a universal standard to Canada’s MPL and restrict the privileges of the holder to only the above mentioned. MPL holders wishing to seek additional privileges will be required to acquire one of the traditional Canadian licences, and, when applicable, acquire the desired ratings.

The issuance of a MPL will follow the completion of a rigorous and continuous 4-phased training course designed specifically for the ab-initio (zero flight time) candidate. Prior to commencing the program, the individual will be subjected to a careful selection process to identify the existence of those attributes believed best optimize the chances of success. Then throughout the syllabus the focus will be on the student's ability to consistently achieve benchmarked levels of skill, knowledge, and attitudinal competencies. A critical element in all this is the continuous development of desirable behaviours and management skills through the adaptation of the principles taught in Crew Resource Management and Threat and Error Management training. To accomplish all the desired outcomes will necessitate a robust quality system and an on-going evaluation process designed to immediately detect and effectively deal with student performance deficiencies.

The development of a performance-oriented syllabus will require an Instructional Systems Design (ISD) approach with emphasis on defining progressive levels of individual knowledge, skill, and attitudinal competencies. This will generate a learning environment focused on the outcomes of each training event and the continuous improvement of student performance. This type of program will need to be backed by an exacting validation process, which will be heavily dependent upon data collection and airline feedback once the trainee enters the workforce.

MPL Advisory Board

In keeping with recommendations from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for the introduction of multi-crew pilot licence training, Transport Canada (TC) is fullfilling it’s commitment to continue to engage principal stakeholders in the on-going development of the multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) regulatory environment. A part of this engagement takes the form of a Multi-crew Pilot Licence Advisory Board. Interested stakeholders are asked to review details of current MPL activity in Canada and make recommendations to implement improvements to existing TC MPL policies promulgated through guidance material and departmental staff instructions.

With the recent launch of beta-testing of proposed MPL training programs in Canada, the first meeting of the MPL Advisory Board took place in early June. Two days of discussions, which included a site visit to Moncton Flight College, provided the participants with a first-hand look at one effort to incorporate ab-initio (no previous experience) competency-based professional flight training into civil aviation. Stakeholders left with a solid understanding of TC’s new MPL regulatory environment and an appreciation of the different challenges facing the implementation of this new licence: not the least of which is the adoption of new training methodologies underpinned by the approved training organization’s (ATO) ‘quality-system’ governance model.

[Cat Driver]

I was in Europe during the phase in of the MPL approach to airline pilot entry training and have watched its progress with great interest.

Reading all the " word salading " that is ground out by the bureaucracy with all their cute acronyms makes me wonder just who will be doing the teaching.

When I look real close at every airline airplane out there I see they still have elevators, ailerons and rudders on them.

I hope the people licensed to provide the training for the MPL understand how those controls work should all the " magic " suddenly fail.

I especially am concerned about this part.

A critical element in all this is the continuous development of desirable behaviours and management skills through the adaptation of the principles taught in Crew Resource Management and Threat and Error Management training.

We have had some total failures in the threat and error management part of flying in the recent past.

[Lost Lake]

Just my 2 cents. Maybe it is time to restructure aviation licensing. From what I see, flying the new heavy stuff has little to do with aviation skills and more to do with computer skills. Maybe it is time to bring back the Senior CPL. This license would be the equivalent of todays ATPL. Pilots wanting to stay in the 703/704 world would "only" require the higher CPL. For those aspiring to the airlines, a CPL would be the prerequisite for a new type of ATPL.

Let's face it, flying or flying in an A320 or bigger is an entirely different experience to flying in small twins. Personally, I have never flown with an FMS or even an autopilot. I know some of you will disagree saying that pilot skills are more important than systems manaement or programming, but having watched MAYDAY for a few episodes, it appears that even high time pilots, when confronted with the technilogical failures in todays sophisticated aircraft, become overwhelmed or confused and cannot or do not "fly the plane" due to confusing or erroneous errors.

Aviation has changed greatly since the 1960's. Maybe licensing should too.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It is interesting to note that the Canadian Navy instituted the Marine equivalent of the MPL almost 20 years ago. Traditionally Naval Officers did all their training at sea in a ship underway. The Navy had a whole squadron of X mine sweepers and 4 frigates whose principal mission was training. In order to save money the Navy scraped the dedicated training ships in favour of a large simulator complex. From then on new Naval officers got a few weeks familiarization in a small 70 or 100 foot training craft and then do all of their training in a bridge simulator. Pretty much everybody agrees that the abilities of new young officers is significantly below what used to be the norm. The result is a lot more hand holding by the Captain and senior Officers of the Watch which is fine when things are going well but not so fine when the S*it has hit the fan.......

[Meatservo]

This all sounds really good except for one thing: When they use the terms "rigorous training" and "closely overseen by Transport Canada" in the same paragraph I pretty much tune out. If I thought Transport Canada had any idea what the qualifications were to actually operate an aeroplane I would feel a little more confident. They make it sound like a pretty challenging course, but I suspect they use bigger words and longer sentences to describe it than they will to actually teach it. I'm thinking this course will probably consist of a lot of poorly presented power-point presentations with pop-up animation, and some simplistic multiple-choice "exams" at the end. It all sounds like a bunch of touchy-feely amateur psychology nonsense like we're all used to from being subjected to "pilot decision making" and "crew resource management" training. Which, I hasten to say, are both concepts that are worth being aware of, but to be fully understood and put into practice probably require a bit more attention than the typical Transport-Canada-approved slide show and quiz.

This whole issue is so relevant to the other threads on "what a pilot is worth" and "pilot pay", that I hardly know where to begin or end ranting.

The only thing I found even remotely encouraging in the above description of the new program is the concept of pre-screening applicants. Unfortunately I have no faith in the people who will be determining the criteria or conducting the pre-screening.

I don't feel confident that if I get one of these new first officers, he or she will be able to land the 'plane in a crosswind, on the centerline, any better than the CPL+IATRA guys we have now. Which would be a step up from what we have now. . Like CAT DRIVER, I am hoping, without much hope, that somewhere in all the blather about SMS and CRM and "threat and error management" there will be at least one or two powerpoint slides that point out what the flappy things on the wing and tail do, and what the pilot has to do to make them go.

This is probably just some kind of plan to get less-qualified and lower-paid bodies into the seats of airliners, with some kind of smoke-and-mirrors "attitude" testing designed to appeal to the corporate types who are pushing for this kind of thing. It's kind of hard to resist this inexorable transformation of "pilots" into button-pushing bus drivers when the whole corporate world stands to benefit from it.

BIG PISTON FOREVER, I like that you have drawn a parallel to the marine world. Kids (I'm assuming they're kids) on this forum are always comparing themselves to doctors and dentists and lawyers and accountants, but I have alway s thought that if you need a comparison , why not consider comparing yourself to a watch-keeping officer on a ship? Doesn't a watch-keeping officer on a civilian ship have almost exactly the same job as an aeroplane pilot, more or less?

http://www.bcit.ca/study/programs/2535dipts

I think Canadian pilots feeling whiny about their pay or trying to decide what they are "worth" should have a look at the link above and compare it to the Canadian CPL and ATPL system. And then watch the testimonial video. It depicts a guy who did the program, is now a third officer and qualified as a second officer, and he talks briefly about his job and his pay. It's an interesting comparison to a very similar profession, basically trained to a far higher standard and paid about the same as pilots.

A long time ago I considered surface shipping as well as aviation, and although I have few regrets, I envy the sea guys their educations. I have been trying to make up the giant voids in my own knowledge on my own time, and it is a tough go. I am tempted to blame Transport Canada and the industry itself, and I think this MPL thing is a step in the WRONG direction.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks meatservo you have expressed exactly my thoughts.

[Wacko]

... I know some of you will disagree saying that pilot skills are more important than systems manaement or programming, but having watched MAYDAY for a few episodes, it appears that even high time pilots, when confronted with the technilogical failures in todays sophisticated aircraft, become overwhelmed or confused and cannot or do not "fly the plane" due to confusing or erroneous errors.

Aviation has changed greatly since the 1960's. Maybe licensing should too.

Keep in mind that most of these guys come from a structure where at 200 hours you go right seat on a automated jet and never look back. If all you've been doing is pressing buttons for the last 7000 hours... well..

Something I would really like to see if a study on the two different mentalities. Have a (lets call it European) method pilot and a Canadian style pilot, both currently flying something like a 737 and roughly the same total time get put in emergency situations to see if there is any difference in how they deal with such situations. (in the sim of course)

[Cat Driver]

Why not just teach them to fly an aircraft before they are introduced to the modern computer assisted equipment?

Because to do that the training industry wouldbe forced to hire flight instructors who can do that?

And that would mean paying for that talent?

[Lost Lake]

Hey Cat, I may not be as old or wise as you , but I just wonder about the future. Take for instance the space shuttle captain. 1 landing every 4 years, all automated. I just wonder if it might be time to seperate the 2 industries, big guys and not so big guys. i personally have no desire to fly the big stuff. To me a twin otter is the best plane going. 12,500lb: use the pedal, steary, pushy thing to get up and down. Piloting skills at and up to this level are all mostly what is necessary.

Todays airline pilots are like technicians on a production line. If something breaks, they have the technology to fix it while keeping the production going. I don't know if I am making myself clear or making sense, I just don't see the comparisom of a young pilot working on the docks or ramping then learning the skills which are necessary to fly small to medium planes, and the F/0 or captain knowing how to turn the coffee maker circuit breaker back on while programming the next intersection into their IPad, and then I clouding it to the airplane, ATC and head office.

[Cat Driver]

Lost Lake. you are correct.....airline flying is totally different from flying the light stuff.

H O W E V E R :::

Until we devise flying machines that do not have flight controls knowing the basics is still paramount for all pilots including the airline people.

[Meatservo]

...and most, if not all, space shuttle landings were conducted manually. I mean if you're only doing one every four years, are you really going to leave it to the autopilot? No way! Those guys were all test pilots and fighter pilots. They trained in a Gulfstream that was modified to simulate the handling characteristics of the orbiter. I am fairly certain those fellows knew what the stick and rudder pedals were for.

[Shiny Side Up]

Why not just teach them to fly an aircraft before they are introduced to the modern computer assisted equipment?

The problem I feel lies with the public perception of how the aviation industry works, and especially how it works in this country. The public doesn't percieve that there is a need for stick and rudder skills when it comes to flying modern computer assisted equipment, therefore there is no demand for it. Schools can charge out for lavish sims, airplanes with glass panels and CRM courses. No one is interested in paying for instructors who are good sticks, or even experienced for that matter. Look at websites out there and find an example of a school which touts its instructors experience over their new fleet of G1000 equipped machines. You won't. Instructor quality is at best page 4 news.

Because to do that the training industry would be forced to hire flight instructors who can do that?

And that would mean paying for that talent?

In all honesty the only people who are interested in paying for talent are the guys out there learning to fly for fun. The guys out there who are really interested in little airplanes. In reality its where the money is in flight training. They will pay for the talent after all.

[MacStork]

This is a great post! However, it is interesting to note how things are changing in aviation and how rapidly these changes are occurring.

For example, the F-35 will be the last fighter that will be manned by a human pilot. The next generation of fighter aircraft will not have pilots. The US military is currently using unmanned drones in Afghanistan and has the capability of flying these aircraft half way around the world to complete a mission and then fly back to America. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a practical civilian application to this.

Remember the old joke about the pilot and the dog? The dog is there to make sure the pilot does not touch anything! It was funny a few years ago ..... but I am not laughing any more.

The traveling public will never accept an aircraft with no pilots, but they may accept a plane where the pilots do not touch anything. All new aircraft currently have the capability to fly from Point A to Point B with no pilot input.

Times are changing quickly.

If I was going to begin a career in aviation these days, I would choose to fly a bush plane.

Just my thoughts .......

[Colonel Sanders]

Have a (lets call it European) method pilot and a Canadian style pilot, both currently flying something like a 737 and roughly the same total time get put in emergency situations to see if there is any difference in how they deal with such situations

I believe Air France tried that with flight 447. Didn't work out very well, when the fancy stuff stopped working and pilots actually had to fly the airplane.

And who can forget such a classic such as Air France 357, where the FO tried to stuff a fast and high A340 onto the runway at YYZ and let the pax out on Highway 401.

Another European FO classic:

[Cat Driver]

It is simply amazing how tough those jets are.......in that case the airplane designers made it idiot proof......

By the way that was not a FO fu.k up......unless of course there was only an F.O. flying it solo.

[Siddley Hawker]

Something along the same lines currently on PPRuNe...

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4808 ... eirut.html

(. check your e-mail please, I had a question for ya.)

[Colonel Sanders]

By the way that was not a FO fu.k up

You're quite right. The left seat did not do a very good job of giving dual instruction on a revenue flight w/pax, as is required in the Brave New World.

Put me down as one of those Neanderthals that still think that someone should have 5,000TT and an ATPL before they first climb into the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus.

[jpilot77]

Put me down as one of those Neanderthals that still think that someone should have 5,000TT and an ATPL before they first climb into the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus.

+1
I couldn't agree more!

[RogerCheckCopy]

Yes, modern airliners are computerized and operating them revolve heavily around the management of the FMS and autopilot. However, there is still and ongoing process of decision making going on from gate to during every flight. You cannot teach real world experience just like you cannot teach common sense. Having someone in the right seat with zero real world experience works great until shite hits the fan and they can go from being an asset to becoming liability in a hurry.

Think AF447 folks, where the one significantly experienced crew member (the Captain) was out of the flight deck at a critical time.

[complexintentions]

It's funny how everyone thinks "their" way of doing things is the best. Quite natural I suppose. But in the end, there are skilled practitioners, and complete hacks, in every profession - and from every country! Colonel Sanders just sounds like a redneck when he denigrates the AF guys in AF447. There is some very interesting information coming to light suggesting that they really never had a fighting chance. I don't think even some self-proclaimed ace airshow pilot could recover from a stall without daylight, pitch, or airspeed information. And I've seen some pretty hairy landings - with self-loading freight on board - by good ol' Canadian boys, and for sure the Euros don't have a monopoly on poor decision-making. We have over 80 nationalities on our flight deck, and I can tell you the Canadians/Americans are in no way any superior to any other nation. In certain areas, they're actually quite weak. Sorry.

But after arriving back from my direct SYD-DXB flight early this morning on the B777, trying to land a 240 ton a/c with a nice 20 knot shear at 600 feet veering to a stiff crosswind, I sure had to laugh at the tired old "button-pushing" comments from the guys who've never flown anything in the category. Somehow, it didn't seem that different from a light a/c when I pushed the pedals to move the "flappy things". Certainly, my mind wasn't on computer skills.

My career started flying very little airplanes without jet engines or autopilots, and I certainly DID learn a lot. But I'd never put down anyone who hadn't had the desire or opportunity to fly something different. Not sure why the need to display their ignorance from certain pilots? I quite enjoy having the opportunity to increase and exercise a wide range of skills beyond manual flying, but not everyone feels the same.

Both management skills and hands and feet are important, whether Cessna or Boeing. The key is getting the balance in training right, obviously different operations need to weight the training differently. Beyond the minimum OPC requirements, our company has us do mandatory handling sessions in the simulator precisely for the reason that there is a high degree of automation for much of the flight. And the training is on point, the most recent session was strictly devoted to two scenarios: recovering from a deep stall at high altitude, (AF447) and practicing energy management from 10 mile final with a dual engine failure (BA38). So yes, it's not all learning to program the FMS.

The biggest change in the "new world" has nothing to do with the aircraft or pilots, but where the good jobs will be located.

[Cat Driver]

Nice to see you posting in this topic Complex, because this subject is very important.

You and I and the Colonel come from the same basic mindset and we agree that the industry must be very careful about how future training will be conducted.

For sure we must not let the desk bound bureaurats drive the agenda with slick sounding mindless rambling.

To me it is still very important that all MPL candates not only understnd how to operate the floppy things bolted to an airplane.......they must also demonstrate profficiency in that art.

Then they can learn the magic stuff.

[flyincanuck]

I will come back to read the previous posts in details as I'm interested in everyones opinion. Just heading out the door..

I will say this:

While dead heading recently on Lufthansa, our flight was delayed an hour and a half.

Maintenance was going over the 320 with a fine tooth comb: flaps extended, etc.

After sitting in the cabin for 30 mins, I asked the FA what the problem was.

She said it was a training flight, and they had a very, very, hard landing. The female FO didn't look much more than 23 years old.

Nothing against female, or young (looking?) pilots, but it made go "hmmmm..."

[Colonel Sanders]

Colonel Sanders just sounds like a redneck when he denigrates the AF guys in AF447.

Thanks for the personal insult! All I can say in response is that if you think AF447, AF358 and Colgan 3407 are examples of "how it should be done", well, I guess you and I come from different places.

I don't think even some self-proclaimed ace airshow pilot could recover from a stall without daylight, pitch, or airspeed information

As Bugs Bunny once said, "You don't know me very well". I know a little about performing aerobatics in cloud without any gyroscopic flight instruments. Or so I am told. TC spent years and years at the Tribunal, Tribunal Review, Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeals maintaining that I was capable of it. Sort of a left-handed compliment, I suppose.

Moving beyond your personal insults, I still maintain that someone ought to have 5000TT and an ATPL to move into the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus. With that much experience, they're probably going to be as good as they ever will be at stick & rudder flying, and button pushing. And that's what the pax in the back deserve - not some kid that's learning how to fly.