Farnborough Air Show

IFALPA Flags Up Concerns Over MPL Training

 - July 13, 2014, 4:00 PM
CAE is one of several training providers that has developed programs for the new competency-based multi-crew pilot license targeted at an expected 3,000 candidates.

The number of training programs preparing flight crews for the new multi-crew pilot license (MPL) continues to multiply. Before year-end, there will likely be 30 or more active MPL programs around the world with well over 3,000 cadets in the pipeline.

The MPL is intended as a competency-based training license focused on preparing new pilots to become airline first officers. Guidance for the MPL was published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 2006.

The new Etihad Flight College in Abu Dhabi plans to offer MPL for United Arab Emirates nationals. Japan Air Lines is claiming the first MPL program in Japan through an arrangement with CAE Oxford Aviation Academy (Hall 4 Stand C17), which is the training provider’s sixth airline partnership. Lufthansa Flight Training (the largest MPL school so far with 1,326 students) recently added training for All Nippon Airways Boeing 777 pilots with courses in Germany, the U.S. and Japan. FlightSafety International has been providing training and support for the core and basic MPL phases for several years at its academy in Vero Beach, Florida.

However, a global airline pilots’ union is expressing reservations that the more than 1,000 MPL graduates to date have not received adequate training. On June 17, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA), through its human performance committee, issued a 10-page position paper, which argued that, “Even in well-managed MPL training programs, several key areas of pilot professional development need increased focus and improvement. Specifically, they are: basic flying skills, airmanship, CRM [cockpit resource management] and ATC [air traffic control] situational awareness.” IFALPA said its conclusions are based on feedback from member airline pilots, “many with considerable first-hand experience flying with MPL graduates.”

IFALPA’s primary concern is that the competency-based MPL progam “relies significantly more on simulator time, less on flight time,” compared with traditional commercial pilot license (CPL) training. “While simulators are adequate for most skill development, they are inadequate for providing real-world exposure or building the situational awareness and experience necessary for sound judgment and decision making,” said the pilot union group.

However, countering this viewpoint, Mitch Fox, air navigation bureau chief with ICAO’s flight operations section, told a recent pilot training conference, “Comments we received from the approved training organizations, the airlines and the captains who were actually involved in the initial operating experience indicated they are very pleased with the performance of the MPL graduates. Programs are getting good results. Pass rates coming out of line training are on the order of 99 percent. That’s really incredible for a brand-new license.”

Fox acknowledged that a December “proof-of-concept” MPL symposium, which drew 300 attendees, exposed some areas for improvement, including program oversight by regulators, air traffic control communications and guidance on instructor competencies. “We need to continue a rigorous application of the MPL concept, joining with industry partners, continuing to gather and analyze data,” Fox said.

In fact, IFALPA agrees that some MPL programs are very effective. “However, none are perfect. IFALPA has drawn on its resources to highlight aspects that may need improvement,” said Mike Jackson, IFALPA’s technical liaison to ICAO.

Well Established Now

According to Dieter Harms, a consultant with the International Air Transport Association and a former CEO of Lufthansa Flight Training who was involved in establishing MPL, the new license is now well established. He said that IATA’s Guidance Material and Best Practices for MPL Implementation publication will be updated by the end of 2014 and is expected to be co-branded with ICAO and IFALPA.

The Global MPL Course Tracker datebase that Harms maintains for IATA reflects the wide variations in the metrics of the 25 MPL programs activated to date, including aircraft flight time, simulator hours and course length. With the exception of the 36-month course offered by Sweden’s Lund University School of Aviation (LUSA), which also grants a university degree, all the MPL curricula run 14 to 24 months prior to an airline’s initial operating experience.

The controversial aircraft cockpit time requirements for MPL programs range from a low of 61.5 hours for AeronautX and its Austrian airline partner Niki to 112 hours for the program that Boeing subsidiary Alteon developed for China Eastern Airlines and Xiamen Airlines. Typical MPL flight hours are between 80 and 100, including solo time. Flight simulation training devices occupy two to three times as many hours as aircraft for MPL students, from a low of 148.5 hours (Lufthansa Flight Training for All Nippon Airways) to a high of 239 hours (CAE for AirAsia). Total hours in aircraft and synthetic training devices fluctuate in a fairly narrow range from 240 to 325 hours.

One of the most controversial debates involves the number of required takeoffs and landings in the aircraft type the new pilots will be flying. The ICAO recommendation is 12, but it allows for an exception of as few as six. Almost all MPL programs target 12, though CAFUC’s requirement is 20. Harms suggested a better metric for a competency-based program might be “three consecutive competent landings.”

The number of sectors a new MPL pilot must fly during initial operating experience also varies widely by airline, from as few as 40 by LUSA to as many as 200 for CAFUC graduates flying in China.

Even some of those involved in promoting MPL admit that a few programs have been little more than traditional training packages dressed up as MPL, but without being truly competency-driven.



Let us not forget Alpha Aviation Group's disaster of an MPL program in Clark, Philippines. It is well-known throughout the industry and paticularly among ICAO in Montreal that AAG lured several cohorts of MPL cadets into a program that had no airline sponsor--a critical fact that was hidden from the cadets until their training was over and all the fees paid. It was a travesty because ICAO knew exactly what was going on and did nothing to put a stop to it. And AAG would not give refunds to those cadets who rightfully requested their money back after the deception and the necessarily useless MPL's. Finally, the CAAP Director-General stepped in and put a stop to the nonsense. The primary AAG manager who slept well through all this (Andy, a truly bad apple) is no longer with AAG. A closer look at the parent company, C&C Alpha group, will show that this type of harmful mismanagement is how they do their business in a variety of their other ventures such as subpar mental hospitals in the UK and withering almond crops in California. AAG may quote 99% placement rates of cadets with airlines... but the real question is how many of them are actually flying? Its about 1 in 3. This is not surprising at all, considering the 100% acceptance rate of MPL cadet applicants during this time this all happened. There are no MPL holders left in the Philippines--ALL of them went back to flight school and converted their licenses to CPL.

Show comments (1)