RFDS Pilatus PC24
Precisely Leady.
I’ve got a few thousand jet and a few thousand turboprop. Each have their own peculiarities, but jets aren’t really that much harder than turboprops. Most of the guys I fly with have never flown anything with props outside of their flying training.
The Pilatus jet will have been designed for ultimate simplicity. Maybe the type rating and 40-50hrs ICUS. End of discussion.
I’ve got a few thousand jet and a few thousand turboprop. Each have their own peculiarities, but jets aren’t really that much harder than turboprops. Most of the guys I fly with have never flown anything with props outside of their flying training.
The Pilatus jet will have been designed for ultimate simplicity. Maybe the type rating and 40-50hrs ICUS. End of discussion.
Precisely Leady.
I’ve got a few thousand jet and a few thousand turboprop. Each have their own peculiarities, but jets aren’t really that much harder than turboprops. Most of the guys I fly with have never flown anything with props outside of their flying training.
The Pilatus jet will have been designed for ultimate simplicity. Maybe the type rating and 40-50hrs ICUS. End of discussion.
I’ve got a few thousand jet and a few thousand turboprop. Each have their own peculiarities, but jets aren’t really that much harder than turboprops. Most of the guys I fly with have never flown anything with props outside of their flying training.
The Pilatus jet will have been designed for ultimate simplicity. Maybe the type rating and 40-50hrs ICUS. End of discussion.
That reminds me of years ago, the then head of training at China Southern, the airline (CSWAFC having been instructed by CASA that their cadets could not do an initial twin endorsement on their Citations, only an old C-310) ask very very senior CASA bloke:" Why do my cadets have to fly a twin engine aircraft with Otto Cycle engines, when they will never again, in their career, fly other than a turbine??".
Does it surprise you that CASA had no answer, not even a bulldust answer.
That chap from China Southern eventually became Minister for Civil Aviation in China, the CASA chap ---- well, that is another story, and China Southern moved their major training investment to Canada.
Back to the thread --- I have no doubt the PC-24 will be a highly successful aircraft, it can virtually go anywhere the PC-12 can go, and will undoubtedly be as nice to fly as all other Pilatus aircraft --- I have only flown the PC-6, both piston and turbine versions.
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Morno
I disagree with your statement about training any jet pilot to become an RFDS pilot, as opposed to an RFDS pilot becoming a jet pilot. I did several years of aeromedical and it's a very specific skill set to become a GOOD aeromedical pilot. Learning to fly a simple to operate jet, not going to take very long at all. It's not a very highly swept wing, so the 'jet specifics' will hardly be noticeable.
Two crew safety in the deal.
Don't say swept wing...
When flown within the proper envelope the swept wing had nothing to do with it.
It is my understanding, not an aircraft owned by the RFDS but more a sub-contract with flight crew to the RFDS. So not possible for RFDS crew to staff it and possibly why it was located at Perth airport (not a RFDS Base).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears you esteemed gentlemen are talking more about the training that would be required of the typical RFDS PC-12 pilot. Yes, the typical candidate could indeed be trained in 3-4 weeks, but how many of you would then be prepared to send him out on a back-of-the-clock trip, as a single pilot operation, in poor weather?
There is a certain amount of "jet like" experience you would want him to have gained first. Experience comes from mistakes, but mistakes take time.
Merry Christmas, by the way, to you all.
There is a certain amount of "jet like" experience you would want him to have gained first. Experience comes from mistakes, but mistakes take time.
Merry Christmas, by the way, to you all.
Yes to the specialised op, once you have that under control a plane is a plane.
A jet is easier to fly than a twin piston or turbo prop, not to mention ASETPA and escape procedures.
Do Aussies like to make everything aviation sound hard?
A jet is easier to fly than a twin piston or turbo prop, not to mention ASETPA and escape procedures.
Do Aussies like to make everything aviation sound hard?
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears you esteemed gentlemen are talking more about the training that would be required of the typical RFDS PC-12 pilot. Yes, the typical candidate could indeed be trained in 3-4 weeks, but how many of you would then be prepared to send him out on a back-of-the-clock trip, as a single pilot operation, in poor weather?
There is a certain amount of "jet like" experience you would want him to have gained first. Experience comes from mistakes, but mistakes take time. I Hope CASA keep the reigns tight on this mob till the experience is there!
Merry Christmas, by the way, to you all.
There is a certain amount of "jet like" experience you would want him to have gained first. Experience comes from mistakes, but mistakes take time. I Hope CASA keep the reigns tight on this mob till the experience is there!
Merry Christmas, by the way, to you all.
FGD you are wasting your time here, most simply don't get it!
There's insurance considerations, previous jet experience for Capts (assuming 2 crew Ops) most seem to think it's easy to step into a jet & fly off into the sunset, it's not otherwise insurance Co's wouldn't have min requirements & there would be dozens of guys ready to take a plane to 45000 ft for the first time like its a C172! Still will be an interesting next 12 months!
Ronny RAAF has been sending pilots aloft in single engine jets solo with less than 200 hrs then into solo night flying and cross countries. Two things keep an aircraft flying: it's the attitude and the attitude!
Stop deriding people's efforts and look for the positives...
Stop deriding people's efforts and look for the positives...
Profile management Is one of the main focuses of jet training for a good reason.
Let's mot be making rash statements.
The funny part is I just watched a house hunters TV show.
He told me he was an "Airline Pilot" more than 4 times!
Still not sure if he fly's a C402 or a A380 but can not get into a hammock.
VLJ's are doomed as we need astronauts to fly them- never could a PPL ever handle one.
Ronny RAAF has been sending pilots aloft in single engine jets solo with less than 200 hrs then into solo night flying and cross countries. Two things keep an aircraft flying: it's the attitude and the attitude!
Stop deriding people's efforts and look for the positives...
Stop deriding people's efforts and look for the positives...
Attitude.
That is a very under rated ingredient.
The RAAF, and for that matter, many military operations do send young candidates out in high performance jets.
There is a major difference between military (government) and civilian operations.
The military will have a good handle on the personality and formative training and discipline of the candidate before said candidate even arrives at the controls of a high performance jet or turboprop.
The candidate operates on their own (CRM deficiencies will NOT be exposed at this point) and any cockups are on them alone with no one else to blame. Military discipline and management of poor discretion should be blunt and final.
Civilian training rarely, if ever, would have such discretion to offer the amounts provided by the taxpayers of any country involved in military training, or the latitude to unilaterally scrub a candidate at any point along the syllabus.
It may be said that some single pilot only jocks from the military, do not often make the most pleasant or efficient operators in an airline (commercial) environment. Indeed even some who have multi crew experience can also be a less than ideal fit into commercial operations. There are those who transition extremely well.
Of course the flip side is also true of civilian operators. Many a competent, efficient and safe pilot was not backed by the military. One reason possible is rate of learning. Of course, there are also terrible outcomes from this avenue also. Military products generally have better tactical handling ability. This basic skill is fundamental and well ingrained.
As far as China Southern et al, it comes down to having a citation instead of a C310 and the money to throw at it. I would not suggest that one outcome is better than the other. That comes downs to delivery and final outcome of the product and inherent skills. The pilot.
Having competent and effective delivery of training is fundamental. The candidate must be competent and highly motivated. A lack of either ingredient is often displayed on these forums, or indeed the statistics of many operations.
It does cost more and is less forgiving to conduct any form of training in a higher performance and more expensive, less forgiving platform.
It appears you esteemed gentlemen are talking more about the training that would be required of the typical RFDS PC-12 pilot. Yes, the typical candidate could indeed be trained in 3-4 weeks, but how many of you would then be prepared to send him out on a back-of-the-clock trip, as a single pilot operation, in poor weather?
Serious question --- do you actually have any experience on "jet" aircraft?
As to the question you ask, my answer is YES.
As for one of you worried about "profile control" --- your problem is?
Tootle pip!!
the typical candidate could indeed be trained in 3-4 weeks, but how many of you would then be prepared to send him out on a back-of-the-clock trip, as a single pilot operation, in poor weather?
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody knows how a new released to line pilot will handle the job, the day you check someone to line means no more than his/her perf on the day!
Welcome to the real world!!!!!
Now there’s an own goal for your team of two..
The T&Cs will know how s/he will go - as good as is reasonably possible - cos the pilot has been doing it for years and knows the real world environmental traps. Their strengths and weaknesses will be known.
The T&Cs will know how s/he will go - as good as is reasonably possible - cos the pilot has been doing it for years and knows the real world environmental traps. Their strengths and weaknesses will be known.
Last edited by compressor stall; 30th Dec 2018 at 18:27.
Too true CS. Chap with beaucoup night turbine time gained a position with an outback medical provider. Got through the training no sweat, until doing the supervised introduction to the line. Had difficulty doing night visual approaches to the typical cattle station strip on black nights, to the point the operator had to let him go. His previous night work had been flying between two ILS equipped airports located in major urban areas, so even a night visual approach still had the T-VASI for guidance. machtuk, I'm well aware there are operators who, perhaps for financial reasons (I've flown with some of their products), pencil whip training. That's the real world, but not as it should be. As to the performance on the day you mention, training should encompass far, far more than a day, my last job took two weeks of flying and ground school to get checked to line, and that having thousands of hours already in the aircraft, and it was a single engine VFR job. Some do it properly, some don't. In my naïvety am I to assume you don't?
Appears that FGD doesn’t have any jet experience, judging by his lack of response. Therefore pretty much everything he has contributed on the topic in regards to training and jet operation is all crap.
