The United States, with its stellar safety record championed by the FAA, seems to do aviation right. Thus, in our own minds, we have established ourselves as the shining example for the rest of the world to emulate. But in many cases we have lagged behind Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other countries belonging to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in embracing forward-thinking concepts, such as the age 65 rule, safety management systems (SMS), and the multi-crew pilot license (MPL). We eventually came around to the age 65 rule and SMS.
It may be time to dismiss the notion that preparing future airline pilots to first instruct in little single-engine airplanes is the best way to go. It may be time to accept that quality instruction from the get-go is as important, if not more so, than 1,000 hours logged in piston aircraft. Not only have foreign airlines such as Luft-hansa proved this concept, but the U.S. armed services also have demonstrated for decades that someone can be taken from zero hours to flying a tactical fighter jet in fewer than 300 hours. So, considering the looming pilot shortage, we need to consider what our flying brethren have been doing successfully with the MPL since 2006 when ICAO established the rule.
ICAO says the “Multi-Crew Pilot License is focused from ‘Day One’ on preparing the co-pilot (First Officer) candidate for the right seat of an advanced airliner using a competency-based approach to training developed with an emphasis on improving flight-deck safety. The MPL recognizes the significant advances in methodology and technology in the training sector that allow the air transport industry to sustain rapid growth by generating an influx of more highly trained and qualified airman to operate today’s sophisticated aircraft.”
Imagine a pilot certification paradigm that dispenses with the usual track of student to private to commercial/instrument to multiengine to CFI to CFII, and finally to CFI multiengine. Of course, add to all of that—which comes at a stratospheric price—the “rite of passage” by submission to the servitude of flight instruction for another 300 to 500 hours and then, perhaps with good luck, a gig flying a Beechcraft King Air as a charter pilot.
The MPL sees trainees moving into the right seat of an Airbus 320 and other high-tech, high-performance Transport category jets with just 240 hours of instruction. Of this, only between 60 and 120 hours might actually be in the air. The student may have performed only 12 takeoffs and landings in the type of aircraft that ultimately will be flown.
The MPL training scheme, which has been validated by some very savvy folks at ICAO, is subdivided into four phases:
Core flying skills. Together with CRM, the concept of threat and error management (TEM) is introduced from the start. TEM is defined as “an overarching safety concept that recognizes the influence of threatening outside factors on human performance.” This phase includes 60 to 120 hours of real flight time in light aircraft.
Basic level of competency. This phase serves as an introduction to multi-crew operations and instrument flight, including upset maneuvers, IFR cross-country navigation, and night flight. Time is spent in part-task trainers as well as aircraft.
Intermediate level of competency. In this phase, the trainee moves into a high-performance multiengine turbine aircraft simulator. Here, the student is further instructed in CRM, line-oriented flight training, and handling abnormal situations.
Advanced level of competency/proof of performance. In this final phase, the trainee moves into a Level D six-axis simulator and eventually performs 12 takeoff and landings as a pilot flying the real airplane to which he or she will be assigned. With the successful completion of the program and demonstration, the newly minted flight crewmember is issued an MPL, qualified to fly as a first officer in type, followed by a line introduction under the supervision of select training captains.
Consider the benefits. The use of high-fidelity simulators creates a controlled training environment. Maximum gross weight takeoffs, maximum crosswind and reduced visibility landings, in-flight emergencies—all can be reproduced in a controlled, safe environment. Students can practice maneuvers that are essential to the conduct of heavy-jet flight by responding to TCAS and GPWS warnings. Certainly, the cost of training can be reduced, and scheduling is more reliable since weather and aircraft status are no longer issues.
Great idea, but what about the price tag and who foots the bill? Transport Canada may give us a glimpse into the future when it states, “Training organizations offering the MPL are probably dependent upon acquiring client air carriers who enter into a pilot provisioning contract with the training provider. As such, it is anticipated that the client operator will then enter into some form of an employment agreement with the trainee to ensure the operator receives full value from their investment.” In other words, the airline or the airline industry pays for that advanced training.
In advanced training for future airline professionals, the international aviation community has left the gate. It may be time for us to catch up—again.
Related Articles
