Air hours slashed for co-pilots (Merged)

[RYAN TCAD]

I think you will find Easterns are in fact charging $18,000.00 for this!

I know - as i refused their invitation to update my resume when i read their conditions that were sent to me along with the invitation.

Bo!

[mingalababya]

I'd be interested to hear what the airlines think of this and whether they'll actualy consider employing anyone with an MPL over someome who meets their current minimum requirements.

[compressor stall]

Can somebody please clarify whether these co-pilots will ever be allowed to move into the LHS? Is there a proposed change in the regs to allow this?

[VH DSJ]

Originally Posted by Aussie

So what happens to all the GA pilots, if something like a MPL is introduced?

It'll be the end of GA as we know it. If you had a $60K budget to spend on becoming an airline pilot, which path would you choose? Most 17-18 year pimpled faced kid would choose the MCL over the current 150-200 hour CPL pathway after which, you're no closer to any sort of flying job anyway. Current flying school establishments will sell their 30 year old planes and invest in flight sims . The weekend warriors will fly sports aircraft and ultralights. And finally, the councils who want to redevelop land where GA airports currently exist wil be rubbing their hands with excitement.
Good bye GA, nice knowing you.

[GaryGnu]

RHS to LHS

Originally Posted by compressor stall

Can somebody please clarify whether these co-pilots will ever be allowed to move into the LHS? Is there a proposed change in the regs to allow this?

Assuming that all a Pilot requires to sit in the LHS of a HC RPT aircraft is an ATPL, then yes they will be. This ignores any internal airline requirements.

ICAO Annex 1 will be amended with effect from 23rd November to define the term Pilot Acting in Command Under Supervision (PICUS) and add an option for experience requirements for an ATPL. 1500 hrs will still be required for an ATPL but it may comprise 500hrs PICUS or 250hrs PIC (of which 100hrs may be PIC and the remaining 150 hrs PICUS).

So in theory a MPL holder with only 10hrs Solo (the min required under Annex 1) could sit in the RHS and accrue all the experience required for the issue of an ATPL. Whether the then ATPL holder is allowed to sit in the LHS is then a matter for the airlines.

Assuming that CASA will change the regs to reflect ICAO annex 1 then there must be an amendment coming

[Merlins Magic]

Originally Posted by GaryGnu

ICAO Annex 1 will be amended with effect from 23rd November to define the term Pilot Acting in Command Under Supervision (PICUS) and add an option for experience requirements for an ATPL. 1500 hrs will still be required for an ATPL but it may comprise 500hrs PICUS or 250hrs PIC (of which 100hrs may be PIC and the remaining 150 hrs PICUS).

Gary

Can you please share with us the source of this enlightening information. I too have heard of changes taking place but as yet I have not been able to locate any details regarding these changes and in particular the new flight time requirements.

Thanks

MM

[GaryGnu]

Merlins,

As stated, it is in Amendment 167 (not sure about the number) to ICAO Annex 1, effective 23rd November 2006. Find yourself a copy and it is there in black and white.

Note this is an ICAO Document, not an Australian one. CASA may or may not (but one thinks it will) align the Australian Regualtions with Annex 1.

[Chocks Away]

Fellas,
Instead of gabbling away and making noise amoungst youselves on here like some bunch of wounded fowl, keep up to date on YOUR AVIATION REGULATORS WEBSITE, where ever you are in the world! THAT IS WHERE THE ANSWERS ARE... because WE read from them and so should you .... to find the answers! Get the drift...READ before you open your mouth!

[mingalababya]

Just read this from the ICAO website regarding the MPL;

3.3 A last point which was not addressed in AN-WP/7380 but which received considerable attention during the Madrid informal meeting was the fact that the current Standards contained in Annex 1 do not necessarily reflect orof facilitate the best practices for the industry. A primary case in point is the underlying concept of Annex 1 whereby a pilot has to be trained for single pilot operations (with a relatively large number of solo or pilot-in-command time hours) before being exposed to multi-pilot operations. There was a consensus in the meeting that this approach not only makes excessive demands on the length and cost of training but is also a source of negative learning, which has a detrimental impact on the safety of multi-pilot operations. Other problems are that the curriculum does not reflect modern technologies and procedures and that the various means of simulation are not given appropriate credit.

So are they now saying that we (the industry) have been barking up the wrong tree all this while and that single pilot experience is actually detrimental to flight safety in a multi-crew environment? Now, that's a pretty big call, given that many of the airlines here require at least 500 hours multi PIC as a minimum.

[bushy]

GA dying?

DSJ

GA does not only consist of capital city flying schools.

The MCPL will separate ga pilots from aspiring airline pilots, which will be good for the real GA. The hundreds of ga charter aircraft in inland Australia will eventually be flown by experienced, specialised bush pilots, who will be paid properly. They will not have a flood of transient airline wannabies who do not care about the future of their industry, snapping at their heels.
And those operators who exploit new pilots will have to change, or go, because no-one will tolerate that anymore. Standards will rise.

It will be next year before the rules come into force, and the airlines will obviously, still take the cheapest pilots they can get. I expect to see a transition period of a few years, before the new MCPL pilots come along.

[Jet_A_Knight]

I first read about the MCL a few months ago in a magazine - I can't recall whether it was Regional Airline World, or some sort of international aviation training industry magazine, and it basically was an interview with one of the head guys at Alteon, wrt to training enough pilots for the projected pilot requirements over the next 25years.

They forecast that in Asia alone - excluding China - a requirement of 2300pilots/year for the next 25 years. Seriously.

The airlines were looking for ways to make up crew for the projected demand, and the aim of Alteons training program for the MCL is to basically cut down on the time it takes to train pilots. The aim of their program is to get someone off the street, and into the RHS of an airliner in 8 months.

That's ok, I suppose, if that's what you need.

Just don't dress this bollocks up as 'improving safety ', like CASA is doing with their press release. Absolute BS

If you scratch a little deeper into this, one starts to see that there are commercial and vested interests in this licence being set up in Australia - a country with excess pilots and exporting to the world, as someone has said on these forums.

From this site: http://www.alteontraining.com/firstofficer/default.aspx

Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL) Program

In November, 2006, Alteon will launch a beta test of our MPL training program in Brisbane, Australia. Though this product is still in the development phase, we invite you to learn more about this new approach to pilot licensing.

For more information about our future MPL license program (Development, FAQ's, News and Events), please click here

I've said it before, it's all fun and games until 'good times go bad '.