Jet time or go!

[airmen]

Turbo prop versus jet time...

When looking for a job, you must have let say around 1500 hrs logged as jet time.
If you have turbo prop time it is taken on acount by a 0.7 factor.

Very often if you have no jet time, you are not considered for the job, even if you fly the fastest turboprop EICAS equiped!

Somebody have an answer???

Thank you.

[Firestorm]

I don't have an answer, but share your frustrations. Every time I think that I am making progress in my career in this industry I run into another mobile goal post.

The only consolation that I can find is that we are on a kind of level playing field: we all suffer the same conditions. It feels a bit like being a ball on a pin-ball table, but it is just the way it is. I also take strength from seeing collegues and peers who do manage to gain advancement, by whatever means they do, and know that if I make the right effort I can join them.

Hang i there: it beats flipping burgers!

[18-Wheeler]

If you have turbo prop time it is taken on acount by a 0.7 factor.


It is?
Who does that? I've never heard of anyone doing that before.

[mutt]

18-Wheeler,

Easyjet use the following formula for factoring hours..

http://www.easyjet.co.uk/en/jobs/pilotrecruitment_ourcurrentrequirments.html

Mutt.

[GlueBall]

We've had F/Es with ATP but zero jet and zero turbo-prop time move into the right seat; and we've had ATPs with 1000 hours PIC turboprop experience not make it into the right seat.

Primary criteria is: Can you fly a jet? Can you fly instruments? Are you trainable?...not whether you have 1000 hours PIC in a King Air or 1000 hours PIC in a Cessna 402.

A 45 minute Sim evaluation ride will usually determine whether your hands on experience level is sufficient to satisfactorily complete the F/O training program.

[Firestorm]

Is that so Glueball.

I have 2500 hours total, 2000 hours on turbo-props, (Twin Otter and Saab 340) and and ATPL: I still get letters back from airline personnel departments along the lines of: "thank you for your interest, but we will not be considering your application at this time. For your information our minimum requirements are an ATPL, or frozen ATPL, MCC, and 1000 hours total time: you must also hold a valid EU passport and have the right to live and work in the UK. Thank you for your interest." Did I forget to mention I was born in London of British parents, or should I include a family tree in my covering letter?

What hope do I have if the people who receive my CV don't read it! And then can't construct a letter that makes sense with regard to the context of what I wrote in my CV?

The point here isn't the sim ride, it's how to get one in the first place!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Fast Erect]

Firestorm....Twotter and Saab 340 time.
I wonder who you work for then?

[airmen]

Glueball:

Your answer do not help at all, you even do not know what is a fast turboprop EICAS equiped!
I am not talking of Cessnas or King Air even if I have nothing against them or the pilots who fly them, I am talking for example about a Saab 2000 flown on the line and with reference to instruments at M .62, yes we fly instruments with turboprops also...

A pilot with an ATPL rating can do that I guess, and I have some of my friends who flew the same type doing it now on 737, 747 or Buses with no problems, I guess it is more a protectionism and ego matter, a plane is a plane and after training a pilot should be able to fly any kind of turboprop or jet, be it small or big.

Off course there is the selection process which is primarily set to see if you will fit the company needs and search entering in consideration, but why this reduction factor for prop time?

Any body...

[411A]

Glueball provided good advice/data. Almost always a 40 minute sim/or like Continental did years ago, airplane (Sabreliner) ride will tell the tale.
Fast turboprop....well yes the Saab2000 is a fast machine alright, but certainly NOT a jet.

Get wise, guys. When the market improves, the jobs will be there...until then,sorry to say, no luck.

Hours in required type helps, big time.

[Flying Clog]

411A:

Your post suggests that jets are harder to fly than turboprops. I for one, having flown both, think that's a load of BOLLOCKS.

Mutt:

Who in the bloody hell would want to work for easyJet anyway?

[Thunor]

411A ,

Quote:
__________________________________________________
Fast turboprop....well yes the Saab2000 is a fast machine alright, but certainly NOT a jet.
__________________________________________________

What a patronising/condescending post...............

No, Certainly not a jet BUT probably harder to fly..........?

[411A]

Flying clog,

Well then, perhaps you have indeed flown both jets and turboprops (so have I)...but suspect that you have never flown the earlier transport jet aircraft...they were a handful, not for the unwary.
When a company recruits for a particular type, they look for experienced guys, not amateurs (and no, not suggesting that turboprop guys are not qualified). IF they can get 'em, why should they look elsewhere?
Suspect you have not been 'round all that long, otherwise you would know better.:rolleyes:
Wonder why the younger crowd always thinks that the cards are stacked against them?
Companies recruit based on need, not just because you need a job. IF the human resources department did not select the best qualified, based on their assessment, they would not be doing their job properly.
Simple as that.

[GlueBall]

When we say "trainable" we mean that the prospective pilot of a heavy jet will be capable of getting "up to speed" after the typical 20 hours of initial Sim training, ...and within 50 hours of supervised line flying. In frequent instances we have found that pilots without previous jet experience need more time in training, primarily because they're "behind" the faster airplane. This is just a statement of fact, not patronization.

At large airlines like UA, DL or AA applicants may be taken by the hand and given whatever additional training is necessary to get on the line. But my airline is not in the training business as such.

[mutt]

Glueball,

Its common practice in Europe for airlines to employ 200 hour piper pilots for the RHS of jets, the system obviously works otherwise they would have dropped it years ago.

So is the system in the USA so different?

Mutt.

[L337]

You have restated the perenial problem. Need jet hours to get the job, can't get Jet hours without the job.

It has always been thus. When times are hard, the airlines use jet hours to weed out the applications. When times are good they will take you if you have one leg and only seen a 737 on the TV.

The good news is that you have Turbo Prop time. Be thankful you are not on some piston thing in darkest Africa. Fun, but difficult to get into the Airlines from there.

I was once in the same hole. I broke out by selling everything I owned, borrowed some 737 manuals, and did my own ground school. Then found the cheapest 737 simulator, and did the conversion course. Followed by a Day/ Night 1179 with Dan Air. (It was along time ago) I had three job offers on the 737 within four weeks. Dan Air, Monarch, and Britannia.

Remember, The only time you lose is when you give up.

L337

[airmen]

Thanks for inputs,

Off course when companies will need people, you might be sure that they will unfold the carpet also for nojet hours pilots...

But faster doesn't mean harder: approaching and taking off we both are at close speed and it is where it is important, engine failure or prop speed low at V1+5 with that big thing dragging like hell is more demanding than a turbo fan!

At cruise speed it is a little bit different but not relevant, jets fly higher and on top, less circumnavigating or icing.

For descent and approach, with jets you better to plan ahead in order to be not too high and fast, but this is not that unmanageable!

No, I need more convincant view...

And I will certainly not give up, L337 ;)

[411A]

mutt...

Not 'different in the USA', just not necessary, many skilled applicants for jobs available.

Have personally trained pilots with (approximately) 250 hours total flying experience as First Officers in heavy jet transports.
They required, on average, in addition to normal systems ground training, 35-40 hours sim training, base training (sometimes as many as 30+ circuits), 200 hours of concentrated line instruction before being released to normal line flying, and THEN only scheculed with experienced Captains (in type) for the next 100+ hours. After ninety days, another line check to be sure they are operating to standard.

About half of the guys I trained were on the B707, a much more difficult aeroplane to fly (accrutely) than some of the more modern jet transports.

Many airlines simply do not have the resources to commit to this type of very expensive training...and IF guys are available that HAVE the required experience, then they are selected.

Just the way it is....good or bad, depending on your outlook.

[henryoo2]

L337

I've spent a short time reading through various articles on this website and would like to say that yours was one of the few positive replies i've read.

As a late arrival to the aviation game, (qualified late 2001 with frozen ATPL), if I believed 10% of the comments and replies that I've seen I would be looking for the highest bridge.

I now have 1000 hours, I'm instructing, have no turbo or jet time but will get the job I'm after.

The reason that half of you guys won't make it is because you don't believe in yourselves.

If you want the job, stop listening to the negative crap, set your sights on what you want and do whatever you need to to get there!

henryoo2

[411A]

henryoo2,

All well and good, having that positive outlook, BUT if the employer requires experience that 'you don't have', all the positive waves will not make a difference.
When it's time to fish or cut bait, those that have the biggest bait catch the fish....as in experience talks, BS walks.

Demeaning or condecending...no, just realistic.
The way it is....in todays very competitive market.

UNless, you find a company that will recruit and train....for the long term, and be prepared for that long term bond that is nearly always required (and rightly so, IMO).:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Tabonbara]

There's a flip-side to this discussion, and I'm not alone in this.

I've over 4000+ Boeing hrs as an F/O, and I must say these hours have been the most miserable of my flying career.

Props never looked so good! Before anyone suggests that I probably don't have the 'right stuff' for a seat change, I assure you this is not the case. Being an expat doesn't help.

Now, my logbook is full of jet time that I wish I could get rid of. Try selling that to a company that runs turbo-props!

From previous prop time days I had a great lifestyle and thoroughly loved flying. The grass isn't always greener with repsects to jet time in a log book.

[sailor]

L337 - Good move; I hope you chose Dan Air! What year was that? We may have met! ;)

[wandrinabout]

Tabonbara

You want some T/prop hours - no probs.

I've got a few thousand you can have, if you wanna do a trade for some of your jet hours! The T/prop hours are of no use to me as every where I want to go either wants time on type or 1000 hours(+/-) jet.

Wish some more operators would use this factoring system instead of completly ignoring T/prop as being irelevant. Ok, its not a jet, but we operate alongside the turbo fan boys in the same environment, terminal areas similar speeds, screens on the panel etc etc.

As already stated, just a means of reducing the CV pile on the recruiters desk me thinks.

One day...... (if I dont get alzheimers first!!)