Should low hour pilots start on Turboprops?
 

These days there is a great belief within the wannabe community that Airbus or Boeing are the only ways forward at the end of training. While many new pilots long to get on to a medium jet straight away, is this necessarily healthy? Many old school pilots argue that they started on turboprops and that is where they really learnt their trade.

I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts on this, both wannabes and experienced flight deck. I am very lucky to be in the position to either take a job with a very unfriendly loco (guess who!) on the 737 or fly a turboprop for my first job, and suprisingly at the moment I find myself swaying towards the latter. I can't help thinking that the more hands on approach of turboprop flying will only go to make me a better pilot and I will be taking home just as much money on a prop as I would be on a jet after I've shelled out for my TR.

Your thoughts would be appreciated!

Many old-school pilots started on fast jets, heavy RAF transport aircraft, helicopters, heavy BOAC long-haul jets, BEA heavy turboprops, and a plethora of others besides short-haul turboprops.

It is the variety of backgrounds and experiences that ensure a strong basic standard across all; I am quite sure that if everyone solely had turboprop experience prior to jets, that a great deal of other flying experiences that have a positive contribution would be unnecessarily sacrificed.

Depends what you want and where you will get the best experiences - working as hard as possible to experience more routes, captains and operating conditions might arguably be obtained at Ryanair than a smaller turboprop outfit. Or it might not depending upon your abilities and experiences.

The opinions of any one person are always going to be to justify their individual experiences and perceptions.

As said above, it is a personal decision.

If I was in your possition I would go for the Turboprop job, mainly for the experience, the majority of pilots I have spoken to all say that the fun flying is before you move onto the Jets.

It also depends how old you are I suppose, if your 30+ i'd go with the 737.

My plans are to take the Instructing route, then maybe air taxi or TP, then hopefully on to the jets. I have no motivation to go straight onto jets from my training, I want to enjoy life (we only get one) and experiences. Money isnt everything :)

Starting Off in a Turbo Prop.
 

Well, I'd say it's better off that Low- Hour Pilots should start off in Turbo Props. The complexity of a Turbo Jet can be really hard to put up with if you are fresh out of a Piston Engine Cockpit. The Props help us grapple it by step, and since it's not as complex as a Turbo Jet, it shall make it easy for us to understand the Mechanism and Operations of a Turbo Jet in no time.

Cheers,
Shajeeth.
(BLUE SKIES.).

Two things spring to mind. Firstly return on investment and secondly should the market implode do you want to be typed on a medium size jet that is readily marketable across the world or on a TP.

Also don't sell yourselves short. My first commercial a/c is a jet and I enjoy flying it. I enjoy going up high and flying a relatively long distance at high speed. Its good to be above most of the weather whereas my other colleagues are dodging CB's etc below me. I enjoy having nice long runways and ILS's to play with. Call me risk averse if you like but I enjoy the simple life. Hell I am not afraid to admit that the auto pilot will do a much better job of flying the aircraft than I ever could. I don't particularly miss the hand flying that I would have gotten if I had gone down the TP route. What I do enjoy however, is the higher pay cheque each month to pay off the investment that I have made in my training. Also the job security of knowing that I am typed on an aircraft that if it all turned to custard I could show my wares across most of the world.

Sure take whatever job comes along first (beggers can't be choosers etc etc) but if moving onto a jet is your ultimate goal then I wouldn't leave it as there is already a long queue of people ahead of you with experience from the low cost carriers that will be building hours and trying to get out. In times of limited jobs they will be way ahead of you.

I say go for the TP.
I am currently flying a 20+ tonne TP, and I love every minute of it.
The pay is not the best, but the challenges of flying into mountanous areas in wintertime and a nice x-wind beats drinking coffee flying at FL350 on your way to just another holiday destination:)
But in the end, it`s your choice;)
Good luck!

I can’t really believe we are having this chat? I mean I thought we are all either aspiring pilots or pilots, and if not actually care enough about the industry to join Prune! Surely if we are all committed to flying and ADDICTED like me then it can’t matter what low houred or any other pilot for that matter starts to fly in! I would be happy crop spraying in Outer Mongolia for:mad: sake! I am awaiting a start date for OAT and can't wait! The idea of what I will be flying in 2 years hasn’t crossed my mind and to be honest won’t really care as long as iam flying!
Sorry to rant but going the integrated route you meet alot of people doing the course because daddy has a spare 70 k! If you really want to fly what you fly shouldn’t pose a potential ball ache!!
Good luck all you fellow hard core pilots!!!:ok:

My personal opinion and I've now flown both.

Go for the turboprop job as financially, you're in a more secure position esp if you don't have to pay for the rating. You'll learn a lot more about weather flying, esp in the terminal area than flying a jet. You'll do a lot more sectors (generally) and you'll be exposed to a lot more than with the jet. This is all good experience which will stand you in very good stead for the future.

If your turboprop has glass and FMS etc then you won't miss out much versus the jet.

Hand flying skills are maintained and believe it or not, it's useful.

When you do move to a jet the experience will help greatly. I found that my experience with the t/prop in manky weather translated easily. About the only thing I was challenged with was the FMS as I hadn't used one before. Also, instead of 3 miles a minute, I have to use 6-7 miles a minute. That took all of 30 seconds to get used to.

The future is impossible to predict. You might get laid off just after you start with the jet job and all that's out there is a t/prop job... Also, you might decide you want to fly a corporate jet and the "hands on" experience will definitely help you here.

Experience isn't just only hours. It's being exposed to many different things and learning.

Good luck.

IMHO take the jet (if there is no other difference in T&C and you have a job secured at the end etc) Jet flying isn't that hard, and will open up much more job opportunities later! So long as you have reasonable capacity and a good pilot I'm sure you would find the jet fine.

Regarding hands on with the jet, depends on the company. My chief pilot would be pissed off if I didn't fly with all automatics/FD off on a regular basis. What trade do you learn on a TP that you don't learn on a jet?!

Cheers.

Take whatever you're offered, if you're offered both take the jet, it's a no brainer

Captain, if the loco you are on about is the one I am thinking then personally I would rather work in MacDonalds than be exploited by them, at least we would get free burgers :ok: (contradicts what I just said but with this carrier it's a different kettle of fish)

tom,
If your SOPs allow for hands on flying then that's great. As you know, jets don't spend much time in the weather, but, history has shown that wx in the terminal area is what takes them out. I have found that a t/prop pilot has a much more awareness of wx as they are exposed to it a lot more.

Many jet operators SOPs actively discourage hand flying. This is a shame IMHO.

If the original poster has to pay for a rating to fly a jet versus not pay for a rating to fly a t/prop I would suggest he goes for the t/prop job.

Dear oh dear oh dear. It's about lifestyle folks, not machinery - at least that's what everyone whinges longest and loudest about on the line. :}

Take whatever offer allows you to enjoy whatever takes your fancy outside of the tube. Personally, I'm a TP operator, soon to be jet, but already wanting back on the TP ASAP because it has a significantly better lifestyle attached to it than the humdrum existence I can expect on my new toy.

As for your jet offer, I wouldn't work for that guy if you offered me a million quid and a no-holds-barred night alone with Kylie! :E

Maude Charlee has it in one.

For me, its definitely about lifestyle - thats the key factor in the decision.
In another life, admittedly as Cabin Crew, I experienced long haul flying on jets. Let me tell the uninitiated that it SERIOUSLY SCREWS with your home life...waaay more than S/H flying (be that in TP or jet) Aside from the longhaul issue, I would agree that the nature of TP flying is going to keep you "on your toes" and your hand flying skills sharper (although with the advent of full glass and FMS a la Dash 8 Q400, I wonder if the gap is narrowing?) but thats a personal choice.

I am mid thirties, past 1000hrs in m/e time and converting an ICAO licence. I am most definitely looking at S/H flying once converted, but my take on getting hired at a T/P operator is slightly different to most here. I would see such a move with a decent operator more as a long term career move - captains at certain TP operators can command 60-70K/year and if money isn't the be all and end all, then that's just fine.

Maude Charlee,

Would it make a difference if it was Danni instead???:ok:

Can't really argue with many of the comments made so far.
You're lucky to be in the position where you can choose, so choose wisely.
I'n my pre-aviation career we were encouraged by the company to take responsibility for our careers. Thus we were encouraged to request the training we wanted and were supported in our endevours to move onwards and upwards.
If you genuinly have the choice then think about where you want your career to go and where you want to end up and choose accordingly. Plenty of info dotted around this site.
It really is all about lifestyle, but that in itself is a very individual set of criteria, encompassing money, flying time, time away from home, days off, roster stability, career progression opportunities, type of flying, desire to 'see the world', working with a small team, being a small fish in a big sea etc etc etc.
Agree with Redsnaill sort of, although I missed out TP's myself, I did a few years air-taxi and survived. Turbo props will give you more weather experience and possibly a quicker command, though command at Ryanair can be quick I believe.
It may not all work out as you hope, but you really need to think about the future and where you want to end up, and position yourself accordingly.
In this instance I don't think there is a wrong answer, although personally, had I been in your position, would have steered clear of taking on yet more debt (I'm still paying my training off some 6 years after obtaining the frozen ATPL).
Good luck

I think is the question is should low hour pilots start off on turboprops?

Like redsnail above, I started off on a 20 tonne turboprop. It was the best and hardest experience I have had in my aviation career to date. I did over 3000 hours on one, approximately 1000 in the left seat.

Now flying the airbus for the last number of years. Have to be honest and say that looking back, the turboprop was a dog to fly in comparison. The airbus 320/321 which I'm now on are alot easier to fly. The automation of the jet is fantastic. It's alot easier to control in critical situations i.e Engine failure on take off etc. Having had the experience of two engine failures, cranking down the landing gear by hand, and a couple of flapless landings on the turboprop, I can say that nothing even close to this has happened me since flying the bus of the sky.

So 8000 hours later, what do I think is the hardest to fly. Without question the turboprop. What is the most comfortable to fly? Without any doubt the jet. Reckon my hand flying skills today are considerably less than years ago. But then again, thats what the airbus was built for.

shajeeth...''Turbojet''
 

Turbojet? what the..?

i think you'll fine civil airliners are turbo fans...sorry to be nitty gritty :P but i just spent the last three years getting the differences drilled into me at uni!! so i thought i would point it out ;) LOL

Redsnail: Thanks for the response, I had not thought about that aspect re: WX. (although I'm meeting more CB's at FL390 than I would like). I remember getting good advice from you when I didn't even have a PPL so people should listen to you. Many thanks in retrospect.

Lord Lardy: An interesting response, I naively thought that a TP would be easier. Live and learn.

All the best.

.
It depends upon age. If you do do T'props then expect to earn alot less for the years that you are on them, but its good experience and I can spot it in my captains - who has flown them and who has not. I by-passd them, so I earn 45k instead of 25k. Cost the difference up over just 2 years and you have your training costs back.
If you work out of large airports you aint got no choice but to keep to profile and the automatics do a far better job that we can do - there's no place for larging it at number 6 in the queue at AMS or CDG at 6am and getting it wrong. Its just too inconvenient for all concerned.

Take the turboprop job if you really think you'll enjoy them. Fly them for a year or two then start looking for a jet position. You'll probably find you bypass a certain vulgar Irishman completely this way and have a heck of a lot of fun doing it.

This debate is gonna keep banging on for all eternity, you dont choose to start on tp's or jets. You take the first opportunity that comes your way having applied to every operator that youve ever heard of!

Turbo-prop
 

I went from a Seneca to a Shorts and the jump at the time was big for me. Only then did I realise how much I didn't know about aviation. That's why it always amuses me when I hear of these 200hrs somethings wanting to go right into a large jet. You don't know what flying is yet.

All the hours I did were hand flown. Conversely, in a two hour flight you'll actually hand fly around 10-15 mins in a jet.

Recently I spoke with a low-hour chap who went straight into a G550. In four months he's flown 180hrs, of which only seven hours were hand flown.

What do you think will make you a better aviator? Go with your heart.
Good luck whatever you decide.

I wish i were in a position to take either of the jobs, let alone choose.

PickMeFlyBe,

He stated in the first post that he has offers for both. The debate may rage on, but not for the originator of the thread.

who cares? i started on 30 year old 207s with no autopilot and one cylinder blown half the time. a turbo prop is luxury and all people do is complain about it....

npasque,

That's where I started from too. Although, they may have been 20 years old. :ok:

I think people who go straight onto jets do miss out by not flying a turboprop as it is good fun and lots of hands on flying. A turboprop is a lot more forgiving than a jet and you can do things like come down the glide slope at 240kts until 4 miles and still slow down in time to land. In a jet you are starting to reduce the speed with 20 miles to go.

Don't listen to people who say jets are harder and more complicated than turboprops, these are usually the people who haven't flown a turboprop and think they are just a big Seneca. I have flown the ATR and the 757 and the ATR was more complicated and harder to fly!

The main thing when chooseing a jet or a turbo (if you are lucky enough to do so) is that jet time is more useful when looking for your next job or if you are made redundant. Believe me more than half of the pilots you talk to have been made redundant, myself included. Jet time will get your CV noticed quicker than turboprop time.

At the end of the day this is just a job and it is a job you need to do to pay the bills. If you find yourself out of work, you need to find a new job quickly as you could loose your house! Jet time will give you more security but you will miss out on the hands on fun of the turbo prop. It is great to hear enthusisiatic guys out there just about start there training, saying they don't care what they fly and it's all about the flying that matters, but if you can try to plan your career, if could pay off in the long run.

I know I sound like an old man who has grown tired of the industry. I have just experienced alot of change and disruption. By the way I have only been in the industry for 3 and a half years!

The overriding factor in any desicion though is which job starts first! You may turn down the turbo prop to fly the jet, but the course doesn't start for another two months. In that time the airline may merge or find there requirments change and suddenly where you had two jobs, you now have none!

Enjoy the job, it's great when your in the air!

I think you should fly a turbo prop if you feel that flying a turbo prop is something you really want to do and you should fly a jet, if flying a jet is something you really want to do. Don't see a turbo prop as a limit or a jet as a limit, when the sky is your limit and the world your oyster.
Most take the first thing that comes along through and that is fine too.

Let life be the dancer - you should be the dance. :ok:

EFIScomp, 240kts until 4 dme? Which operators allow these speeds?

A TP will provide you with the skills required to progress on to jets at a later stage. Im am most certainly going down this route. TP and small operators will provide you will knowledge of the ops procedures and workings of an airline.

The worrying thing is, is that this industry is backwards. The 250 hours 'dreamers' are in jets and the experinced instructors taxi pilots etc go in to TP's!

I would have loved to have been given the chance to fly a turbo-prop, would have been great experience, but it all came down to one thing..........

You can´t pick and choose your job when you come out of training! I couldn´t fund to train as an FI and then move out on a low salary etc and pay the loans (you know the story) so it was a type rating or risk sitting on my back side sending out more and more CV´s for goodness knows how long.

Looked at getting an ATR rating, 16 grand plus (GBP)... I was working in OPS at an ATR operator and would have bitten their hands off for an ATR job, but nothing doing. How many UK ATR operators? 16K? Made not one bit of sense.

737 NG+Classic rating..... 16K, now that makes more sense. Didn´t agree with self-funding etc but 3months later I had myself a 737 job.

I wasn´t a FATPL dreamer, I just wanted a job and I can´t exactly be blamed for doing what I did.

When it comes to hand flying, I can basically hand fly as much as my Captain allows and I am making sure that I take advantage of this. Busy airspace of course means autopilot, but we get the chance of quite a few visual approaches etc which keeps your eye in.

Low hour pilots shouldn´t just start on jets and they shouldn´t just start on turbo-props. Each individual is different and should take the first job offered, they are like gold :)

Start on either - it's as simple as that!

Seriously, wannabes should be aiming for any commercial job whether it's turboprops or jets. Once you've got experience you can start picking and choosing!:ok:

A choice between turbo props and jets?

Unheard of in Africa. Here we have to start as a instructor or work for a charter company starting in C206 working our way up to C208, a process that takes over 2 years, after that the natural step is to fly contract in North and Western africa, starting of on a C208 and after you got your ATPL's they wil put you on a B1900D if you are lucky or a B200. After flying that for about 2 years you can only think of getting a job on a airline.

I am currently working for a charter company, we fly into bush strips. I can tell you one thing, every day is a learning experience. I only really learned to fly here. I learned to make my own decisions based on my experience and theoretical knowledge. Every our i put in my logbook is hands on flying and i know that one day this will help me. I am 28years old and having the time of
my life.:)

I challenge anyone to spend a day driving a Q400 and then tell me it's easier to fly than a jet. Mix in the type of airfields we go to and the weather we're constantly in, and I'm convinced that as a low hours pilot, one gets more valuable experience in a TP than a jet.

Whether it's as valuable to your logbook and/or bank balance is another question . . .

I very nearly had to choose between a 737 (self funded TR) and a Q400 job. I'm actually quite glad I didn't get as far as being offered the 737 job, so the decision was taken out of my hands. Another friend of mine did have to choose - he went for the Dash. I think he made the right choice.

Well, in asia it's a different ball game.Normally the route to become a commercial pilot is done via cadet pilot scheme rather than military or private fund cadet pilot.Once we complete training,wo go direct to widebody such as Airbus 330/340 and Boeing 777/747. We bypass props and those narrowbody like 320 and 737. You can see airline such as cathay pacific and singapore airlines practise that.so it's normal if you see people as young as 20 on the RHS on widebody and being a captain at the age of 28.

Yes we should :cool: