easyjet

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Knee Trembler - the 'tone of superiority' you refer to was never intended. Nonetheless, I stand by my view that, taken as a whole, being a captain on a medium jet (andl larger) is significantly more involved that that of a turboprop. I have done both and am in a position to make that judgement. Unfortunately, it has proven virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on the subject due to offence being taken at some imagined slight. Talk of the need for experience to do the job properly has been incorrectly taken as a suggestion that turboprop captains are less talented than jet captains. That is never what was said.

I completely agreee with catplaystation that were I to swap my fancy Airbus for an F27, it would give me much to consider. I once used to fly a Herald with Channel Express - in a 6-month period I had 3 engine fires! As a low-houred First Officer I got to do a genuine single-engine landing. All of that is virtually unthinkable for today's 200-hour cadet on an Airbus/737. First of all, it is highly unlikely he will get a real engine failure and secondly if he did the Captain would do the landing. Any F27 pilot will tell you the nightmare of trying to handle an EFATO in the Maastricht sim - a jet is much easier to handle single-engine and has so much more power available. However, a turboprop is slower, less complex overall, does not travel as far afield and operates at much lower levels. Also, you have to really try hard on a turboprop to be 'hot and high' - energy management on a jet is a whole different world, as any honest ex-turboprop pilot will tell you. It is incredibly easy to find yourself up the creek without a paddle with an unstable approach on a jet - in a turboprop you just close the throttles and the 2 huge eggs whisks are the best speed brakes ever invented. The issue of range is also very critical - in a typical week a jet captain can find operating in the snow of Helsinki or the sun of Marrakech, Gibraltar or Funchal. Operations to these breadth of destinations tends to be a jet feature due to the longer ranges they are capable of. Each one of those destinations require signficant knowledge and experience to be able to safely operate there. Also the huge range of weather types you experience in these widespread operations (even more so on a transcontinental jet like a 747 or A340) simply require experience in order to be able to deal with them correctly. Some turboprops do not even have passenger oxygen on board because they operate at lower levels (or can get down to 10,000' quickly in the case of the Q400). When I was on turboprops, there was little talk of drift down as I never went anywhere with high enough mountains to worry about! Even the ATC was more of a problem on jets due to the fact that it took time to adjust to the wide variety of accents you heard day-to-day on the radio as you travelled to more places! I was a turboprop captain with 1800 hours total time - not uncommon in those days and I felt able to handle the role. The thought of being an Airbus captain with that level of experience is frankly alarming. As I said in a previous post, you would be incredibly vulnerable to something going wrong. It does not mean you cannot pass the course - it does mean you lack the breadth of experience necessary to deal with the enormous range of events that can occur in jet operations for the reasons I have given (range, weather, heights, speeds, complexity, handling characteristics, ATC variations).

The phrase I used previously that sent a couple of frail souls over the edge was when I suggested that to go from a turboprop to medium jet captain in one hit was a 'recipe for disaster'. I stand totally by that view - it has proven to be an enormous jump for many people to go straight from the left seat of even of an Embraer 145 or BAe 146 to that of an Airbus or 737. It would undoubtedly have been too much for me, as I freely admit. A number of people have done so successfully - but a significant number have not managed it well. It is also worth mentioning that the fact that medium jet captains are trying to get turboprop jobs does not mean anything other than the fact they are unemployed and need a job. The fact they are being considered at all tells its own story - there is a long and successful history of ex-jet captains finishing off their flying careers on turboprops.

So in answer to Knee Trembler's question, would 6 month's be appropriate in the RHS for ex-jet captains? For the reasons I have given, the answer is No. I genuinely believe that despite the clear difficulties of going in either direction, the route from turboprop to jet overall requires significantly more adjustment than going the other way. For those that feel offended by that view, I am sorry, but there you have it.

And by the way - I think the Embraer 190 is a fine-looking beast. I would be delighted to fly one myself, but it does not look like easyJet will be getting any soon!