Air Taxi Experience Requirements
Educated Hillbilly
Further to the comments that air taxi work is hard to find; I have seen several adverts in the last six months for air taxi jobs, several also stating they would consider for interview anyone with the minimum for single pilot ops requirements (700 tt 40 p1 multi IFR as opposed). Further to this I have the chance to do some part time safety pilot work this winter for an air taxi firm.
I acknowledge the comments that it is not easy work, but if forking out for 40 hours of p1 multi time could give me the chance of getting interview for an air taxi job ,then I would happily do so in order to avoid spending any more time as an instructor. Besides at some point you have to attempt something with minimal experience to gain experience otherwise you would never progress.
Consider the alternatives for most instructors at the 700 hour mark,
1) Continue instructing only gaining single engine hours in hope of gaining an airline interview (which 8 out of 10 times your still paying for the rating)
2) Paying for a type rating rating
3) Heading to the states for 40 hours of multi time in order to stand a chance of getting considered for an air taxi job.
I think 3 is the best of those three options so regardless of the horror stories.
Besides can it really be any less scary than some of the students we instructors have to fly with?
I acknowledge the comments that it is not easy work, but if forking out for 40 hours of p1 multi time could give me the chance of getting interview for an air taxi job ,then I would happily do so in order to avoid spending any more time as an instructor. Besides at some point you have to attempt something with minimal experience to gain experience otherwise you would never progress.
Consider the alternatives for most instructors at the 700 hour mark,
1) Continue instructing only gaining single engine hours in hope of gaining an airline interview (which 8 out of 10 times your still paying for the rating)
2) Paying for a type rating rating
3) Heading to the states for 40 hours of multi time in order to stand a chance of getting considered for an air taxi job.
I think 3 is the best of those three options so regardless of the horror stories.
Besides can it really be any less scary than some of the students we instructors have to fly with?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the truest quotes I have heard in a long time!
It takes balls to say "I'm not going, the Wx is too ****"
I have two schools of thought for those out there trying to get into it:
1. If your airmanship is a bit below average, think twice!
2. If you dont have at least 700 hours with 40 P1 Multi IFR, think twice.
Without these two things, you will struggle when your chips are down! It is not an easy job.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dry bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides can it really be any less scary than some of the students we instructors have to fly with?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 62
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructing is a walk in the park compared to single pilot IFR work.
My take on it, having flown for more than 2 years as a second pilot, on PA31s and C404s, then progressing to the left hand seat with the experience gained.
With the bare minimum of 700 hours and just single engine piston time behind you, I think the real day to day flying in piston twins will at some stage scare you witless. Remember you are flying aircraft of some age, limited performance OEI and usually fairly close to MAUW. Usually no weather radar fitted either!!
The major problem I gather from folks who actually hire is that guys with the bare minimum of hours usually struggle with the base check, especially on types such as the Chieftain and the C404. These aircraft are quite a step up from twin trainers most will have flown.
I was lucky to have spent a considerable time in the right seat with very proficient high hours guys most who were line trainers as well. A really good place to learn the trade if any of you can get some second/ safety pilot work and it builds your multi time if you get positioning sectors.
My take on it, having flown for more than 2 years as a second pilot, on PA31s and C404s, then progressing to the left hand seat with the experience gained.
With the bare minimum of 700 hours and just single engine piston time behind you, I think the real day to day flying in piston twins will at some stage scare you witless. Remember you are flying aircraft of some age, limited performance OEI and usually fairly close to MAUW. Usually no weather radar fitted either!!
The major problem I gather from folks who actually hire is that guys with the bare minimum of hours usually struggle with the base check, especially on types such as the Chieftain and the C404. These aircraft are quite a step up from twin trainers most will have flown.
I was lucky to have spent a considerable time in the right seat with very proficient high hours guys most who were line trainers as well. A really good place to learn the trade if any of you can get some second/ safety pilot work and it builds your multi time if you get positioning sectors.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 Rings
I back up apruneuk on that, as does our ops inspector. Check out appendix 2 to JAR OPS 1.940, page 1-N-9. You have made the same error as the people who wrote LASORS (the wording is very poor).
You will find that the operator not only still wants the hours specified in 1.960, but that it is often written into their ops manual making them mandatory. As has been discussed here, it is a difficult job (although after a few months the jobs that go right are quite straightforward).
However there is some flexibility, possibily dependent on the CAA ops inspector. Pilots who don't have the exact hours specified in 1.960, although not ideal, might still be taken on with extra training requirements and restrictions on instrument approaches. We have looked at a pilot for example with no real P1 time in MEP but with IFR commercial time in a single turbine.
I back up apruneuk on that, as does our ops inspector. Check out appendix 2 to JAR OPS 1.940, page 1-N-9. You have made the same error as the people who wrote LASORS (the wording is very poor).
You will find that the operator not only still wants the hours specified in 1.960, but that it is often written into their ops manual making them mandatory. As has been discussed here, it is a difficult job (although after a few months the jobs that go right are quite straightforward).
However there is some flexibility, possibily dependent on the CAA ops inspector. Pilots who don't have the exact hours specified in 1.960, although not ideal, might still be taken on with extra training requirements and restrictions on instrument approaches. We have looked at a pilot for example with no real P1 time in MEP but with IFR commercial time in a single turbine.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for experiences of flights in the light charter market - how about a gear problem on climbout (doesn't come up, then won't lock down as I cycle it). Have to carry on, with a liver on board for transplant. Manage to get most of the gear up, but clearly something still dangling, so I spend 3 hours at gear limiting speed, expecting to crash at the end of the flight!
We do miss the weather radar. Have only been hit by lightning once, but been through a good few storms and squalls - and squalls can be worse than storms. Bounced my line trainer off the ceiling on one (he's an airline pilot, so loosens his lapstrap. I used to fly aeros, so always keep mine tight!).
Have been lucky with my engine failures - one on final, the other other just after landing (hard to taxy on one!). Watch out for low-hour engines. The first 50 hours after rebuild are the highest risk.
We do miss the weather radar. Have only been hit by lightning once, but been through a good few storms and squalls - and squalls can be worse than storms. Bounced my line trainer off the ceiling on one (he's an airline pilot, so loosens his lapstrap. I used to fly aeros, so always keep mine tight!).
Have been lucky with my engine failures - one on final, the other other just after landing (hard to taxy on one!). Watch out for low-hour engines. The first 50 hours after rebuild are the highest risk.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, sadly, the current commercial flight training system in Europe assumes that new pilots only want to fly airliners and is totally geared to achieving this aim.
The IR exam for many is seen merely as a box to tick before undertaking a type rating course; indeed, many of the instructors and some of the examiners have never actually flown single pilot IFR in anger other than on one of half a dozen pre-rehearsed routes when a student has badly messed up. Indeed, most successful students will never again fly single pilot multi IFR again, effectively shutting that door with 20 hours TT on an actual aircraft!
To make matters worse, many commercial schools now use aircraft such as the Diamond Twinstar for their IR training. Whilst this makes perfect sense for progression to a modern multi-crew flight deck, it is of little help when the newly qualified pilot is faced with a 1970s Navajo that has changed little (apart from the dents) since it was built.
If a newly-qualified Wannabe wants a job in this industry the best way in would be to offer your services to a charter company as a pilot's assistant and learn the ropes (unpaid, of course!) that way. It is certainly not for everyone but it is an extremely fulfilling occupation for those who learn to love it.
PS
The pay still stinks as most employers still believe (wrongly) that it is a stepping stone for an hours builder to a jet job. What they are just starting to realise is that you can get a jet job with 200 hours TT so why bother to hours build? The instruction industry is slowly waking up to the same fact and I believe that pay and conditions will soon have to rival airlines or the supply of pilots in this sector will soon dry up.
The IR exam for many is seen merely as a box to tick before undertaking a type rating course; indeed, many of the instructors and some of the examiners have never actually flown single pilot IFR in anger other than on one of half a dozen pre-rehearsed routes when a student has badly messed up. Indeed, most successful students will never again fly single pilot multi IFR again, effectively shutting that door with 20 hours TT on an actual aircraft!
To make matters worse, many commercial schools now use aircraft such as the Diamond Twinstar for their IR training. Whilst this makes perfect sense for progression to a modern multi-crew flight deck, it is of little help when the newly qualified pilot is faced with a 1970s Navajo that has changed little (apart from the dents) since it was built.
If a newly-qualified Wannabe wants a job in this industry the best way in would be to offer your services to a charter company as a pilot's assistant and learn the ropes (unpaid, of course!) that way. It is certainly not for everyone but it is an extremely fulfilling occupation for those who learn to love it.
PS
The pay still stinks as most employers still believe (wrongly) that it is a stepping stone for an hours builder to a jet job. What they are just starting to realise is that you can get a jet job with 200 hours TT so why bother to hours build? The instruction industry is slowly waking up to the same fact and I believe that pay and conditions will soon have to rival airlines or the supply of pilots in this sector will soon dry up.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting thread this.
Can anyone shed some light on the money beingpaid for this type of work? I am usually too polite to ask people face to face!
VFE.
Can anyone shed some light on the money beingpaid for this type of work? I am usually too polite to ask people face to face!
VFE.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always earned more in this job than the pilot I replaced has at the same time in the turbo-prop operation he went on to. He felt he should have stayed here, and would come back but for the bond!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. If your airmanship is a bit below average, think twice!
Educated Hillbilly
Interesting comments.
So to all you seasoned ait taxi pilots, I have done some research on hour building in the states and although there are some cheap deals available on the dutchess; it sounds as though hour building on seneca is going to be much better prep for a chieftain (having flown both the seneca and the dutchess, the dutchess is a pussy cat to fly). However 40 hours of twin hour building in the US is going to still cost about £6000 (for a seneca) as said there are cheaper deals on lighter twins (dutchess or seminole).
However a JAA approved citation rating in the US could be done for about £9000, so there isn't much in it between the two options.
So for all those that have previous air taxi experience, knowing what you know which of these two options would really be best for an instructor at the 700 hour mark.
Financially I couldn't comtemplate another season full time instructing, but a six month contract in my previous career would easily raise the cash for the multi time or type rating.
So to all you seasoned ait taxi pilots, I have done some research on hour building in the states and although there are some cheap deals available on the dutchess; it sounds as though hour building on seneca is going to be much better prep for a chieftain (having flown both the seneca and the dutchess, the dutchess is a pussy cat to fly). However 40 hours of twin hour building in the US is going to still cost about £6000 (for a seneca) as said there are cheaper deals on lighter twins (dutchess or seminole).
However a JAA approved citation rating in the US could be done for about £9000, so there isn't much in it between the two options.
So for all those that have previous air taxi experience, knowing what you know which of these two options would really be best for an instructor at the 700 hour mark.
Financially I couldn't comtemplate another season full time instructing, but a six month contract in my previous career would easily raise the cash for the multi time or type rating.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone shed some light on the money beingpaid for this type of work? I am usually too polite to ask people face to face!
Citation vs twin time building? The twin time + 700hrs tt will get you a shot at the base check somewhere for sure. But the Citation job would surely be more desirable (if you could get it).
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic I know, but Flying Farmer......... woud you agree the C404 is about the best twin piston around and whips the pants off the Chiefton by miles ?
Back to the thread............
Back to the thread............
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 62
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Buzz
I very much enjoyed flying the 404 it had a quiet cabin, good performance when both ran! a logical cockpit layout, reasonable avionics and flew like a mini airliner. The only real issue was engine handling in the descent from altitude, the Continentals fitted need to be treated with kid gloves with regard to shock cooling.
The drawbacks in my opinion. When heavy, we often flew with 7 pax and 2 crew, one engine inop figures were less than encouraging, but the Chieftain was no better. In icing conditions the 404 was not great, the Chieftain seemed able to cope with moderate icing conditions better.
I liked both aircraft, both were a joy to fly. In my humble opinion I thought the Chieftain was the better workhorse.
I very much enjoyed flying the 404 it had a quiet cabin, good performance when both ran! a logical cockpit layout, reasonable avionics and flew like a mini airliner. The only real issue was engine handling in the descent from altitude, the Continentals fitted need to be treated with kid gloves with regard to shock cooling.
The drawbacks in my opinion. When heavy, we often flew with 7 pax and 2 crew, one engine inop figures were less than encouraging, but the Chieftain was no better. In icing conditions the 404 was not great, the Chieftain seemed able to cope with moderate icing conditions better.
I liked both aircraft, both were a joy to fly. In my humble opinion I thought the Chieftain was the better workhorse.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Warks
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming one has the required hours and the, er, balls, has anybody got any more names to add to the list of companies already discussed in this thread. I've had it with instructing. My ultimate aim is aid work. Single-pilot IFR seems a sensible way to go to prepare me for that,
TB
TB
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Farmer
That's all very well for SLF, but the door is lousy. A Seneca is better, at least you can get a pallet in. The 404 can fit 2, has a better payload and fantastic range. Never flown the Chieftain, but it whips the Navajo!
That's all very well for SLF, but the door is lousy. A Seneca is better, at least you can get a pallet in. The 404 can fit 2, has a better payload and fantastic range. Never flown the Chieftain, but it whips the Navajo!
