DGCA’s Pilot Training Overhaul May Not Solve India’s Pilot Crunch

India’s aviation regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), is planning an overhaul of how India trains its pilots.

On August 7, the DGCA announced it has formed a committee to review, develop policy, and set the regulatory framework for implementing the Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL) system in India.

The committee’s mandate spans multiple areas: reviewing regulations and shaping policy, developing training curricula, framing guidelines for airline and training school partnerships and more.

MPL is being pitched as a fast-track route to airline cockpits. It merges traditional pilot training and type rating (certification that allows pilots to fly a specific type of aircraft) into a single, streamlined programme focused on one specific aircraft type from the outset.

Need For Speed

According to policymakers and airlines, the timing of this proposal is no accident.

“India has more than 2,000 new aircraft on order for delivery over the next decade — a fleet expansion that will require an estimated 12,000–15,000 new pilots,” Atiesh Mishra, Director AJM Jet Management, told The Core.

Airlines fear that, if they rely solely on the existing Commercial Pilot License (CPL) training programme, they will face an acute shortage within the next four to five years. CPL training takes longer to complete. The MPL is being pitched as a solution to fill that gap faster.

The DGCA believes the new training programme will be a pathway to produce type-rated pilots and keep pace with the country’s rapid fleet growth.

On paper, the model seems efficient: it produces type-rated first officers tailored to an airline’s needs. But in practice, critics warn it could come at the cost of broader flying skills and career flexibility.

“With the new system, the airlines will get a positive change. But it is very bad for general aviation and even more for the careers of the pilots,” says Captain Mihir Bhagvati, president of The Bombay Flying Club’s College of Aviation and a DGCA-designated pilot examiner.

He argued that MPL graduates — trained for only one aircraft type and starting their careers as first officers — risk becoming “flight managers” rather than fully developed aviators.

“Instead of making pilots, they are making managers for the flight. General aviation and the skill of piloting will be killed completely in this bargain,” he warns.

Globally, MPL was introduced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in 2006, but adoption is uneven.

“Not all countries have accepted the MPL. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not recognise it. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) recognises it, but with restrictions on simulator hours. The United Kingdom recognises it, China does it, but Australia does not,” Mishra said.

The Core has written to the DGCA and will update this article if and when it receives a response.

MPL vs CPL

The difference comes down to training hours and experience in actual aircraft.

CPL: Traditionally requires 200 hours of flying experience (down from 250 in earlier years) before type rating, a specialised training and certification that allows a pilot to fly a specific aircraft model.

Around 90% of this training happens in an actual aircraft, and about 10% in a simulator. Graduates receive a commercial pilot licence with a Pilot-in-Command (PIC) rating for smaller aircraft such as the Cessna 172 or Diamond DA42 — the type they trained on.

“When you join an airline, you start as a co-pilot,” explained Mishra. “After that, the airline interviews you and either sends you for a type rating or you arrange one yourself. That means you get an Airbus A320 or Boeing 737 type rating done and are endorsed as a co-pilot. Then you start working in an airline, move up to senior co-pilot, and after a certain number of hours, you earn your airline transport pilot licence and become a captain. That’s the traditional path.”

MPL: Requires just 70–80 hours of actual flying on single-engine aircraft and about 140 hours of training conducted on simulators.

An MPL licence effectively makes you a co-pilot for a specific airline from the start. It works much like a credit programme sponsored by the airline. For example, Indigo could tie up with a flying school and project an upcoming pilot shortage. The airline would then ask the school to enrol students in its MPL programme and deliver, for instance, 200 trained co-pilots each year.

In the MPL model, trainees spend 70–80 hours flying smaller aircraft before moving almost entirely to simulators, starting with smaller ones and then progressing directly to full-flight simulators for type rating on larger aircraft.

Mishra calls MPL a “shortcut” to fill vacancies. “Aircraft don’t fly in a virtual world. They fly in real time, where there are weather, safety issues, and challenges. The more hours you fly an actual aircraft, the more you build real-time confidence and experience,” he said.

Even as the government signals interest in the MPL programme, many industry experts remain unconvinced. Safety is a particular concern.

“There have been incidents where a captain has suffered a heart attack, and the co-pilot must be capable of landing the aircraft safely. In an MPL environment, where most training is on simulators, that level of safety is significantly reduced. I don’t understand this concept of MPL that easily,” Mishra added.

One Aircraft, One Airline

MPL graduates are typically tied to the airline that sponsors their training, which can severely restrict career flexibility.

“If it’s Indigo, they will only be working for Indigo. They cannot switch to another airline easily because they have been trained on one type of aircraft, either an Airbus or a Boeing,” Bhagvati said.

This setup guarantees airlines a constant supply of pilots already trained for specific aircraft, but it diverts talent away from general aviation, charter services, flight schools, and small aircraft operations. These sectors risk losing skilled pilots who would otherwise gain experience there before moving to airlines, potentially weakening both their operations and the broader pilot training ecosystem.

From the perspective of the trainee, the long-term trade-off can be steep. “You’re locked into one airline and one role — usually as a co-pilot — until the airline decides to upgrade you to captain. That upgrade requires further training, often at your own expense,” Mishra explained. “Yes, you may save some time compared to the CPL route, but in the long run, you’ve shortened your career rope.”

Why Students Might Still Sign Up

For many aspiring pilots, the priority is simply getting into the cockpit of a commercial jet.

“Students and parents want a pilot’s licence in hand because that is like having a blank cheque. Whether it’s MPL or CPL, they want something that gets them into an airline and starts making money. They don’t bother how it’s to be done,” Bhagvati said.

A Middle Ground?

Bhagvati isn’t against change altogether, but he wants safety and skill to take precedence over speed.

“Why repair something which is not broken? This is certainly a very dangerous thing happening,” he said.

He has proposed a compromise: keep 150 hours in actual aircraft and 100 in simulators, rather than the current MPL plan of only 70 flying hours.

“In any other country, it is 200 hours. But airlines in India are putting pressure to get things to the lowest possible level, which can be dangerous,” he warned.