View Full Version : What is so special about jets...
Clandestino
2nd Sep 2009, 17:10
... that there are hordes of PPRuNers perplexed by the pilots with 200TT geting rated in them? Are they really so difficult to fly and operate that people with freshly minted CPLs would be better off gathering some experience on turboprops first before stepping-up to shiny jet? And why are many fresh fATPL course graduates ready to spend bucketfuls of money just to get a slim chance of flying one? Why do we call them jets as they are technically turbofans, anyway?
IF you have never flown one...you might be excused from your ignorance.
200 hour wonder, in a commercial transport passenger jet?
Not a good scenario, when it all goes TU, when 'automatics' fail...unless there is a safety pilot (well trained First Officer) available.
Well trained First Officer...worth his weight in gold...make no mistake.
And, pay the well trained First Officer what he is worth...which is a lot.
LOT...being defined as...two thirds of the Captains salary.
Minimum.
Do we do this?
'Yer damn right.:ok:
Bealzebub
2nd Sep 2009, 22:45
For the same reason nobody undertaking driving lessons gets too worked up about a Nissan Micra! The ambition and the starry eyed dream is always for the sexy metal, be it a car or an aircraft. The reality is likely to be different, and even with the attainment the novelty wears off, but the pinnacle is always the pinnacle.
Same with Jets. Yes they are turbofans, but the former sounds sexier.
Brian Abraham
3rd Sep 2009, 02:53
There is nothing particularly special about jets. On the military course I went through those that lucked out to jets (not turbofans) stepped into the cockpit with but 20 hours of prior experience in a T-34. Ball park I would guess they had 500 hours at the most as a full fledged combat aviator in their A-4, F-8, F-4. Its all about the quality of training, supervision, and yes experience. The trouble is the person who comes up through the civil training (general aviation) misses out on the quality and supervision part in the main.
SNS3Guppy
3rd Sep 2009, 07:41
200 hour wonder, in a commercial transport passenger jet?
Not a good scenario, when it all goes TU, when 'automatics' fail...unless there is a safety pilot (well trained First Officer) available.
Don't tell that to the Air Force...they won't know what to do with all those 250 hour "wonders" who complete Undergraduate Pilot Training and then go on to fly tactical aircraft with no "automatics" or autopilot...and no safety pilot. How ever do they do it?
Aussie
3rd Sep 2009, 08:19
Yeah but they are AIR FORCE.... they special.... :}:}
Yeah but they are AIR FORCE.... they special...:}
Yep, they're 'special' alright.
Just like that Pablo what'shisface some time ago who couldn't follow simple company directives.
The airforce can keep these guys, civil aviation sure as heck doesn't want nor need them.
Otto Throttle
4th Sep 2009, 10:43
The only difficult thing about flying jets is the grumpy old fart in the LHS. :}
Pedant head on.
A Turbofan is still a "Jet".
Carry on. :suspect:
Pugilistic Animus
5th Sep 2009, 21:32
the price tag!
and they tend to kill more people in a crash other than that DP Davies answers that question in a more techical sense,..in is little book
I started in the jets with 200h. Now i am with 7 years experience and in a long haul jet. I dont think they have anything special.
It's just some people want to be important and try to extrapolate what they do.
Any aircraft deserves the same respect and responsible attitude. A small piston single engine or a big four engine jet, both deserve the same attitude when flying.
Both can crash and kill us and our passengers.
It's different to fly a jet, but cant you learn? I think it's easier to learn when you have 200h. I remember an accident in Brazil(Rio Sul E145 at Curitiba), where there were two captains in the cockpit. One with a lot of experience in turboprops and the other was the instructor. The experience of the turboprop captain and the lack of supervision of the instructor caused the tail of the aircraft to brake during the flare. The turboprop captain just retarded the engines to idle to soon causing a hard landing and braking the tail. So.....there goes the experience point of view
Note: I am not sure of the experience of the pilot...but if i remember well, he had 5000 hours in turboprops.
Fark'n'ell
6th Sep 2009, 08:35
What is so special about jets...
They can go faster than prop driven aircraft.:rolleyes:
bucket_and_spade
6th Sep 2009, 08:57
They're noisier and therefore cooler.
Neptunus Rex
9th Sep 2009, 02:37
Dear Coto,
Surely, of all people, a turbo-prop pilot should realise the effect of cutting power in the flare! It should not be a problem on most jets, provided that you are at the appropriate height, rate of descent and, most importantly, the correct, stabilised airspeed.
I must agree with dear old 411A. He might be vociferous but you young 'uns should read and digest his words of wisdom.
In my experience, the problem with most 200 hour 'jet jockeys' is not the engines, it is their lack of understanding of swept-wing aerodynamics.
By the way, I was a zero hour jet pilot, but there were no passengers involved!
Best wishes,
Neppie
:ok:
Zeflo27
9th Sep 2009, 03:59
Agree with Otto hardest part about flying jets is the grumpy old sod in LHS !
List, in no order.
They trim differently to Turboprops because of the way the tailplane works.
The swept wing makes them more of a handful in a crosswind.
They fly higher and faster and are much more unforgiving when mis-handled.
The engines are slower to spool up. So you need to be stable earlier.
The use of Thrust Levers on the approach has a different technique.
Accurate flying requires a accurate Attitude flying, especially at heavy weights.
Stopping is more demanding than pulling a handful of reverse pitch.
But if you are sat in a FBW aeroplane, then you can ignore allot of the above.
I can say with conviction that a Boeing 747 at MTOW behaves very differently to a DHC-6 at MTOW.
And the hardest part is dealing with the numpty in the RHS who thinks he know everything, and if only I would die, then he could sit in my seat.
Zeflo27
9th Sep 2009, 09:52
L337
You've got a point there :)
parabellum
9th Sep 2009, 12:48
Every thing that L337 said and:
I believe the main difference is speed. The speed at which things can go wrong once they start.
A few years on piston and turbo prop aircraft can only enhance the basic handling skills and experience of the new pilot as well as their knowledge and their instinct for trouble.
If a person says they started on jets with 200 hours and don't see the difference then:
a). They have nothing to compare their experience with and
b). They probably have never been faced with any kind of serious emergency.
Clandestino
9th Sep 2009, 12:51
Thank you for your kind replies, ladies & gentlemen. I should have explained that when I wrote "jets", I meant "turbofan powered transport category aeroplanes" :O
They trim differently to Turboprops because of the way the tailplane works.
Does having trimmable vs. fixed stabilizer require radically different piloting technique or is it there just difference in trim power/speed?
The use of Thrust Levers on the approach has a different technique.
Could you please elaborate on that?
SNS3Guppy
9th Sep 2009, 12:54
Yep, they're 'special' alright.
Just like that Pablo what'shisface some time ago who couldn't follow simple company directives.
The airforce can keep these guys, civil aviation sure as heck doesn't want nor need them.
Good for "pablo" and his company, whomever they may be.
Not only the USAF, US Navy, and US Marines putting very low time pilots in cockpits with great success...but militaries of many other countries, too. Not to mention the numerous ab initio airlines, and indeed many airlines of the world which utilize pilots of very low total experience in the cockpit.
As far as civil aviation not wanting military pilots...seems that's just not true. You might not wish it to be so...but military aviators have always been in demand, and have always had a leg up in obtaining civil employment.
Clandestino:
I'll give it a go. But I am sure minds immeasurably superior to my own will give a better technical explanation.
Trimming: As the whole tail moves when you trim, as opposed to a tab on the back of the elevator, it allows the tail to trim over a very wide range of speeds, and CoG. It is also very powerful. The neutral trim position is reset as the tailplane moves. The technique, that I was taught, is that you trim, then ease the elevator pressure. See what you have, then trim some more. Repeat and rinse. Once correctly trimmed the control column is central. And thus by definition, the elevator is in-line with the tail surface. In a trim tab situation, the column is not necessarily central, and the elevator is deflected, and held in place by the trim tab.
Approach Thrust Levers: Big Jets have lots of inertia. A power change takes a while to effect the speed and path. You need to set a sensible power for the approach, then see what happens. Let it settle. If you are up and down on the power settings you never know where you are as nothing ever stabilises. Tending towards an unstable approach.
Propellers, and lighter aeroplanes are quicker to react to power changes. Big Jets take time. Big jets are slower to slow down, and slower to speed up.
None of this is rocket science to fly. Just practice, and a new awareness needs to be trained.
I would emphasise that I am very much a non technical pilot. The super brains in the test pilot forum will do a far better job than me. Especially the elevator answer. It has been a very long time since I gave that subject any thought at all.
...but military aviators have always been in demand, and have always had a leg up in obtaining civil employment.
Not in the airlines that I have worked for, they haven't.
In fact, one large airline in the middle east looks at any military pilot flight time as a nonentity....IE: what else ya' got, bub?
IF a former military pilot arrived at our HR door without substantial civvy experience, he would be shown...the exit door, PDQ.
Pugilistic Animus
9th Sep 2009, 16:36
if you want to be in a civilian jet with 200 hrs TT that means to me you obviously don't give a cr*ap about flying/ aviation :*
RWEDAREYET
9th Sep 2009, 16:56
Jet, Prop, Piston, doesn't matter...
How much money and how much time off...
The two most important questions when looking for a job in aviation...
The rest, well, doesn't matter to me anymore....
Flown 4 engine jet heavies to single engine bug smashers....
If I could make as much as I make now, with more time off in the bug smasher....sign me up, I'm there..
Just my 2 cents...
BitMoreRightRudder
10th Sep 2009, 18:42
if you want to be in a civilian jet with 200 hrs TT that means to me you obviously don't give a cr*ap about flying/ aviation
A massive generalisation, and a totally inaccurate one at that. I just wanted to fly for a living, just so happened I went onto a 737 as there was huge demand from jet operators at the time. And in fairness it kinda helps to pay off that big loan, as opposed to a thoroughly interesting and spectacularly low paid FI job.
It's like saying all red arrows pilots are compensating for their tiny :mad:*
* I've flown with a couple of former reds and they vehemently deny this :E
SNS3Guppy
10th Sep 2009, 20:42
A massive generalisation, and a totally inaccurate one at that.
That's really the idea of an ironic, sarcastic statement, is it not?
Pugilistic Animus
11th Sep 2009, 22:31
Guppy you are one of the best examples of a true aviator,...A pilot's pilot and you have a pair of wrought iron ones too:ok:
PA