Turbine Experience. Why so important?
I seem to recall the PW118A engines in the EMB120ER have auto start?
If correct, it's probably simple to teach a monkey to start the donks, with or without 207 hours previous experience!
Blue Hauler ...... an accountant? Not in your wildest nightmares!
If correct, it's probably simple to teach a monkey to start the donks, with or without 207 hours previous experience!
Blue Hauler ...... an accountant? Not in your wildest nightmares!
Last edited by Torres; 12th Mar 2003 at 22:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alright fellas, methinks this is on the verge of turning into another one of PPRuNe's famous bitch-&-moan sessions.
BH, your points are valid ones - but then so are MJB's. Experience counts, but lack of experience does not automatically rule out someone from being a competent pilot if they have received good quality training/guidance. The fact is, you weren't born with wings on, and you had to start at the bottom rung just like everyone else. Nevertheless, I'll assume you're a competent operator of your aircraft type, and you made the transition from piston to turbine just fine - otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it.
As I said before, if someone had absolutely no flying experience at all, a C172 would be just as challenging as a King Air and vice versa. It's not the aeroplane that makes the pilot, but the training he or she receives on it. If Qantas can train zero-time cadets through to a B747 and the RAAF can place the same into the front seat of a fast jet, a piston driver should be able to transition to a turbine. It's that simple. Experience simply means you've been doing the same thing for longer than the next guy.
BH, your points are valid ones - but then so are MJB's. Experience counts, but lack of experience does not automatically rule out someone from being a competent pilot if they have received good quality training/guidance. The fact is, you weren't born with wings on, and you had to start at the bottom rung just like everyone else. Nevertheless, I'll assume you're a competent operator of your aircraft type, and you made the transition from piston to turbine just fine - otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it.
As I said before, if someone had absolutely no flying experience at all, a C172 would be just as challenging as a King Air and vice versa. It's not the aeroplane that makes the pilot, but the training he or she receives on it. If Qantas can train zero-time cadets through to a B747 and the RAAF can place the same into the front seat of a fast jet, a piston driver should be able to transition to a turbine. It's that simple. Experience simply means you've been doing the same thing for longer than the next guy.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
druglord
mjbow2
Hmmmm....... now I wonder why that is so.
You'd better go check and see if your workers comp cover, includes shooting oneself in the foot ???
Alas insurance companies dictate our destiny
Druglord....one of the few noteworthy comments on this thread. Insurance companies indeed.
Hmmmm....... now I wonder why that is so.
You'd better go check and see if your workers comp cover, includes shooting oneself in the foot ???
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Agree with the statements of Bunglerat,
and to further that guys, from the old Ansett cadet scheme in the 90's British Aerospace, Tamworth graduates were flying for kendell, flightwest, aeropelicans and skywest after about 200tt and some loft/crm training in a b737 generic sim, their where even some lucky ones going on to the A320, 146 and 737 at the time. Another case is BA, LH, easyjet........etc....... in europe with fresh 200tt cpls in the right hand seat of a 737/A320/767/757, I think QF is a bit different if you are a S/O because it is more of a learning viewing role with 4 monthly sims chucked in for proficiency.
In my opinion GA is a great grounding for building skills, BUT sometimes you can develop the wrong skills along the way for the airlines aswell, but with airline cadetships and fresh ab initio pilots off the street it is the best way to get into airline ops at the end of the day. that is why we have training captains in airlines to pick deficiencys and correct them for these low time pilots!!!!!!
Agree with the statements of Bunglerat,
and to further that guys, from the old Ansett cadet scheme in the 90's British Aerospace, Tamworth graduates were flying for kendell, flightwest, aeropelicans and skywest after about 200tt and some loft/crm training in a b737 generic sim, their where even some lucky ones going on to the A320, 146 and 737 at the time. Another case is BA, LH, easyjet........etc....... in europe with fresh 200tt cpls in the right hand seat of a 737/A320/767/757, I think QF is a bit different if you are a S/O because it is more of a learning viewing role with 4 monthly sims chucked in for proficiency.
In my opinion GA is a great grounding for building skills, BUT sometimes you can develop the wrong skills along the way for the airlines aswell, but with airline cadetships and fresh ab initio pilots off the street it is the best way to get into airline ops at the end of the day. that is why we have training captains in airlines to pick deficiencys and correct them for these low time pilots!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunglerat
I am not attacking MJB personally, just his message. I feel that he is not telling us the full story but having us believe he is a 207hour Brasilia pilot and that tends to cloud the argument unfairly. He probably works as a LAME with considerable experience around the turbine maintenance area. But then I guess this is a rumour network!
Don’t forget that after training your Qantas cadet spends considerable time (years) as Second Officer and First Officer before graduating to a command role. Again military pilots train under a very intensive training regime before graduating. The fail rate is high given that the selection process is so stringent. We don’t have those options in GA.
I guess that’s what it’s all about from the GA operators point of view and Qantas and the military. Operators ‘risk manage’ the learning process to achieve the end result. If a private individual has the where-with-all to fund his own aeroplane, training and consequences there is nothing anyone can do to stop him. At worst he will get a Darwin Award.
Downwind
But how many went to a turbine command position with just 200 hours? The experience requirements of the operator would once again be the overriding factor. The RHS is a good place to start getting the experience! But many GA operators don’t operate their King Airs single pilot and can’t afford the ICUS training process. Some even demand payment for ICUS as threads on this board will attest.
Torres
I forgot you dabbled in the accountancy area – no offence meant. I guess that was just a foundation for your ultimate qualifications as Aviation Manager, Maintenance Controller, Pseudo Pilot, Aviation Lawyer, Airport Surveyor, Airline Advisor, Government Aviation Advisor and all those other skills you picked up with years of experience around the flight line. The experience that posters on this thread believe can be learned in just two hours endorsement training!
… Alright fellas, methinks this is on the verge of turning into another one of PPRuNe's famous bitch-&-moan sessions.
BH, your points are valid ones - but then so are MJB's….
BH, your points are valid ones - but then so are MJB's….
… If Qantas can train zero-time cadets through to a B747 and the RAAF can place the same into the front seat of a fast jet, a piston driver should be able to transition to a turbine…
… Experience simply means you've been doing the same thing for longer than the next guy….
Downwind
…Tamworth graduates were flying for kendell, flightwest, aeropelicans and skywest after about 200tt and some loft/crm training in a b737 generic sim, their where even some lucky ones going on to the A320, 146 and 737 at the time….
Torres
I forgot you dabbled in the accountancy area – no offence meant. I guess that was just a foundation for your ultimate qualifications as Aviation Manager, Maintenance Controller, Pseudo Pilot, Aviation Lawyer, Airport Surveyor, Airline Advisor, Government Aviation Advisor and all those other skills you picked up with years of experience around the flight line. The experience that posters on this thread believe can be learned in just two hours endorsement training!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the PW's are easy to start.....as are the PT 6's. Not harder....Different.
Trained monkeys! well put, I couldnt agree more. To suggest in any way that managing a turbine engine is harder than a piston is rediculous.
Perhaps every instructor should remove the word 'hard' from their vocabulary and replace it with 'different'. God forbid the rest of the world finds out its not hard to fly an aircraft......
Trained monkeys! well put, I couldnt agree more. To suggest in any way that managing a turbine engine is harder than a piston is rediculous.
Perhaps every instructor should remove the word 'hard' from their vocabulary and replace it with 'different'. God forbid the rest of the world finds out its not hard to fly an aircraft......
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bagot Community
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my experience, turbine's are by far a lot easier to handle than piston's, especially those turbo-charged pistons, or fragile Continentals.
Turbine's are also very easy to start compared to a heat soaked piston engine.
I have heard the "you can easily cook an engine" arguement so many times but this is normally very easy to prevent.
Every turbine has some type of turbine temperature gauge for that purpose.
On starting, the temperatures very rarely go near the limit. If the temperature ever approaches this limit (which can very easily be seen on a simple colour coded temp. gauge - which can be read / understood by any 10 year old or younger) it is not such a hard task to cut off the fuel by a simple movement with your fingers.
This is not a very complicated and mentally demanding task and anyone with the intelligence and skill to fly a piston should be able to start a turbine without too much trouble.
In order not too cook an engine in flight, just keep an eye on the turbine temperature and avoid going near the limits - turbine temperature being directly proportional to power lever movement.
Nothing too complicated at all.
And now pistons :
- more difficult too start (esp. when hot)
- gradual power reductions (esp. turbo's)
- constant power approaches
- avoiding idle/ low power on descent
- mixture leaning / re-adjusting all the time
- managing engine temperature and cooling by using airspeed
- cowl flaps
- alternate air/ carb. heat
- fuel boost pumps
The list goes on........
From my experience, turbine's are a lot easier and I can not see what the big deal is.
Turbine's are also very easy to start compared to a heat soaked piston engine.
I have heard the "you can easily cook an engine" arguement so many times but this is normally very easy to prevent.
Every turbine has some type of turbine temperature gauge for that purpose.
On starting, the temperatures very rarely go near the limit. If the temperature ever approaches this limit (which can very easily be seen on a simple colour coded temp. gauge - which can be read / understood by any 10 year old or younger) it is not such a hard task to cut off the fuel by a simple movement with your fingers.
This is not a very complicated and mentally demanding task and anyone with the intelligence and skill to fly a piston should be able to start a turbine without too much trouble.
In order not too cook an engine in flight, just keep an eye on the turbine temperature and avoid going near the limits - turbine temperature being directly proportional to power lever movement.
Nothing too complicated at all.
And now pistons :
- more difficult too start (esp. when hot)
- gradual power reductions (esp. turbo's)
- constant power approaches
- avoiding idle/ low power on descent
- mixture leaning / re-adjusting all the time
- managing engine temperature and cooling by using airspeed
- cowl flaps
- alternate air/ carb. heat
- fuel boost pumps
The list goes on........
From my experience, turbine's are a lot easier and I can not see what the big deal is.
Turbines really are not that big a deal.
I do admire the Metro guys for pushing them around day / night with no real creature comforts.
The B350 is no harder than than a B200. With a great tailwind you get there earlier, start descent earlier ect but eventually end up at the the same vref. Yes its just time management. I thought Flt Safety recommend not above F290 for normal ops. Anyway RVSM controls that now.
Yes you could learn in turbine, why not, if you have the dollars go for it. It just takes time and a instructor who can handle the change in tradition.
Hasn't been a bad post so far.
I do admire the Metro guys for pushing them around day / night with no real creature comforts.
The B350 is no harder than than a B200. With a great tailwind you get there earlier, start descent earlier ect but eventually end up at the the same vref. Yes its just time management. I thought Flt Safety recommend not above F290 for normal ops. Anyway RVSM controls that now.
Yes you could learn in turbine, why not, if you have the dollars go for it. It just takes time and a instructor who can handle the change in tradition.
Hasn't been a bad post so far.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: qld
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'M WITH YOU BUNGLERAT . CERTAINLY MONEY IS A CONSIDERATION BUT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO TRAINING.
WHY CAN AIRFORCE PILOTS GO FROM CT4'S (OR WHATEVER) TO PC9'S OR PREVIOUSLY JET MACCHI'S AND THEN SAY ONTO HERC'S, HAWKS, ETC. WITH ONLY ABOUT 200 HOURS TOTAL TIME?
AND THE ANSWER IS.....BECAUSE THEY ARE TRAINED CORRECTLY AND THOROUGHLY.
WHY CAN AIRFORCE PILOTS GO FROM CT4'S (OR WHATEVER) TO PC9'S OR PREVIOUSLY JET MACCHI'S AND THEN SAY ONTO HERC'S, HAWKS, ETC. WITH ONLY ABOUT 200 HOURS TOTAL TIME?
AND THE ANSWER IS.....BECAUSE THEY ARE TRAINED CORRECTLY AND THOROUGHLY.
Why have experience turbine drivers?
Here's why -
On cooked Garret TPE-331-3, from all the turkeys who don't know how to look after then engine after landing.
Lots of training helps though.
Here's why -
On cooked Garret TPE-331-3, from all the turkeys who don't know how to look after then engine after landing.
Lots of training helps though.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bagot Community
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why have experienced turbine pilots ?
Ok, so you only want to employ "experienced turbine pilots !!"
however
"no one is ever born an experienced turbine pilot" !!!! (or maybe you were)
and what will happen when the industry runs out of this elite specialised group of turbine pilots to employ ???
- they will have to eventually employ a "non-turbine" pilot.
In regards to the RAAF, I read in the book "going solo" how once all ab-initio training was in a Macchi including 1st solo !!!!
In regards to that picture of expensive damage to a turbine, I could easily post many pictures of aircraft damage just as expensive in which the cause was not related to the engines / pilot experience.
Accidents are inevitable and if we going to flash a picture of a damaged turbine blade as a reason not to employ inexperienced turbine pilots, we might as well flash pictures of aircraft accidents as reasons not to ever fly in the first place.
however
"no one is ever born an experienced turbine pilot" !!!! (or maybe you were)
and what will happen when the industry runs out of this elite specialised group of turbine pilots to employ ???
- they will have to eventually employ a "non-turbine" pilot.
In regards to the RAAF, I read in the book "going solo" how once all ab-initio training was in a Macchi including 1st solo !!!!
In regards to that picture of expensive damage to a turbine, I could easily post many pictures of aircraft damage just as expensive in which the cause was not related to the engines / pilot experience.
Accidents are inevitable and if we going to flash a picture of a damaged turbine blade as a reason not to employ inexperienced turbine pilots, we might as well flash pictures of aircraft accidents as reasons not to ever fly in the first place.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the land of blue grass
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen up you ‘Eager Beavers’. When I was a young ‘un I wanted to pull out the stops and make things happen. That old ‘Jackass’ in the left seat was just another speed bump I needed to overcome to reconstruct my seniority number. But I learned very early in the piece that the old ‘Jackass’ had a wealth of experience.
He’d probably sat through runaway props, fires, instrument / avionics failures, depressurisations and a host of systems failures including pumps, hydraulics, anti ice and any thing else you can think of. He knew that he didn’t want to be holding an airplane in visible moisture between zero and ten below. He could coax every last mile out of the SGR when the anti ice systems were pushing up the gas consumption and draggin’ down the airspeed.
You get an abnormal that ain’t in the book, or some that are and react. Why that old Jackass would say ‘why not forget that and try this boy’, and damned if it wouldn’t work. I soon learned to watch and listen. I was doin’ CRM before it was discovered. I just about pumped those geezers dry of information and filed it away in the memory bank.
Forget the military pilots – they ain’t natural. The military employ the cream of the cream, and whittle ‘em down until they got just the ones they need. Then they spend billions on ‘em. Those hard heads have got the keenest eyes, the sharpest reflexes and the steadiest hands. That’s why the use young ‘uns. They don’t have any passengers without Martin Bakers and ‘chutes. And if they get creamed, well there ain’t anything more stirring or patriotic than a funeral with full military honors.
Those old Jackasses have the experience that your company demands. No CEO wants to face litigation for incompetence tempered with lack of experience. And those Jackasses that are instructors are just lookin’ out for your interests. Heed what they got to say and don’t rush to the hereafter. You’ll get the left seat when it’s time.
He’d probably sat through runaway props, fires, instrument / avionics failures, depressurisations and a host of systems failures including pumps, hydraulics, anti ice and any thing else you can think of. He knew that he didn’t want to be holding an airplane in visible moisture between zero and ten below. He could coax every last mile out of the SGR when the anti ice systems were pushing up the gas consumption and draggin’ down the airspeed.
You get an abnormal that ain’t in the book, or some that are and react. Why that old Jackass would say ‘why not forget that and try this boy’, and damned if it wouldn’t work. I soon learned to watch and listen. I was doin’ CRM before it was discovered. I just about pumped those geezers dry of information and filed it away in the memory bank.
Forget the military pilots – they ain’t natural. The military employ the cream of the cream, and whittle ‘em down until they got just the ones they need. Then they spend billions on ‘em. Those hard heads have got the keenest eyes, the sharpest reflexes and the steadiest hands. That’s why the use young ‘uns. They don’t have any passengers without Martin Bakers and ‘chutes. And if they get creamed, well there ain’t anything more stirring or patriotic than a funeral with full military honors.
Those old Jackasses have the experience that your company demands. No CEO wants to face litigation for incompetence tempered with lack of experience. And those Jackasses that are instructors are just lookin’ out for your interests. Heed what they got to say and don’t rush to the hereafter. You’ll get the left seat when it’s time.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM - Amen!!
Plenty of people think they do 'it', whether that is SPIFR in a Chieftain or a B200/350. It all looks easy from the outside. And they probably could get away with it too, whilst the going is good; be out there flying unbeknownst that luck is their copilot for ages - until the day that the luck runs out, and people get killed.
Operating the turbines is just one part of the equation - there are many peripherals and variables in turbine aircraft operation and a solid experience base makes for more capable 'transition'.
Plenty of people think they do 'it', whether that is SPIFR in a Chieftain or a B200/350. It all looks easy from the outside. And they probably could get away with it too, whilst the going is good; be out there flying unbeknownst that luck is their copilot for ages - until the day that the luck runs out, and people get killed.
Operating the turbines is just one part of the equation - there are many peripherals and variables in turbine aircraft operation and a solid experience base makes for more capable 'transition'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right, so experience then.......
Consider
Pilot A has started life with a CPL and an Instrument rating. Then went off into the world as an instructor / scenic / VFR Day SE charter pilot. All of a sudden, gets the chance to jump into the the command seat of a Caravan or the right seat of a Twotter doing VFR ops. Gets a thousand hours (maybe even a Twotter command) and tries for a job flying a B350 IFR charter (LHS or RHS, lets face it, he probably knows how to use a PT6 by now).
Pilot B started life with a CPL and an Instrument rating. Then went off into the world as an instructor / scenic / VFR Day SE charter pilot. All of a sudden his company upgrades him into a B58 or C310. Gets a thousand hours of flying SP C310 IFR charter (might even have got upgraded to a C404 or C421) and then tries for a job flying in a B350 IFR charter.
So, if your the guy considering the two applicants for the job, what would you choose.
Consider
Pilot A has started life with a CPL and an Instrument rating. Then went off into the world as an instructor / scenic / VFR Day SE charter pilot. All of a sudden, gets the chance to jump into the the command seat of a Caravan or the right seat of a Twotter doing VFR ops. Gets a thousand hours (maybe even a Twotter command) and tries for a job flying a B350 IFR charter (LHS or RHS, lets face it, he probably knows how to use a PT6 by now).
Pilot B started life with a CPL and an Instrument rating. Then went off into the world as an instructor / scenic / VFR Day SE charter pilot. All of a sudden his company upgrades him into a B58 or C310. Gets a thousand hours of flying SP C310 IFR charter (might even have got upgraded to a C404 or C421) and then tries for a job flying in a B350 IFR charter.
So, if your the guy considering the two applicants for the job, what would you choose.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: qld
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the thread's gorn mate, I think the threads gorn. What on earth are youse blokes tryin ta say mate, wadda youse blokes tryin ta say, eh?
STREWTH , very cleveeer scenario but how did PILOT A get his first turbine job initially anyways?? BUH?
Turbine shmurbine, it all comes down to propa training in the first instance. Do you work for a company that'll spend one hour on training or 20 hours? Both types of companies exist maaate.
STREWTH , very cleveeer scenario but how did PILOT A get his first turbine job initially anyways?? BUH?
Turbine shmurbine, it all comes down to propa training in the first instance. Do you work for a company that'll spend one hour on training or 20 hours? Both types of companies exist maaate.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sometimes here usual out there!
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have moved into the "mystical" world of turbines and let me tell all piston drivers out there. Turbines are a piece of piss. They all say it is harder etc, but I think they are protecting themselves.
Pistons are fragile, tempermental pieces of @$@ and turbines start easy are are almost bullet proof!!
Ever noticed that nine times out of ten when a turbine gets cooked there is a moron at the wheel!!
Pistons are fragile, tempermental pieces of @$@ and turbines start easy are are almost bullet proof!!
Ever noticed that nine times out of ten when a turbine gets cooked there is a moron at the wheel!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like Mount'in Man had to Listen up to some crusty old jackass for God knows how many hours before he got his turbine command......
Fantastic, great......yep we all can learn a lot form a few old crusties in the left seat. thats always been the case and always will.
NOT THE POINT!
The argument made is that you need that almighty experience to command a plane that is easier to fly than the plane that Bungelrat is flying now......
Ever flown with a GTSIO 550 hanging off the wings......what a friggin nightmare! And then to crack a head......count the cost of that one! not to mention the 5 minute TBO's.
I think you get the picture by now Bungelrat......Those that had to listen to jackasses for 5000hours will tell you your a liability until you too have listened to the same jackass for 5000 hours. And those instructors MM.....are looking out for their own image, not their students interests. How else could they explain why they dont have a turbine job?
If there was more prestige in driving a piston they would tell you you need a lot more experience than driving a turbine. God forbid you find out MM's job is easier than yours.
Fantastic, great......yep we all can learn a lot form a few old crusties in the left seat. thats always been the case and always will.
NOT THE POINT!
The argument made is that you need that almighty experience to command a plane that is easier to fly than the plane that Bungelrat is flying now......
Ever flown with a GTSIO 550 hanging off the wings......what a friggin nightmare! And then to crack a head......count the cost of that one! not to mention the 5 minute TBO's.
I think you get the picture by now Bungelrat......Those that had to listen to jackasses for 5000hours will tell you your a liability until you too have listened to the same jackass for 5000 hours. And those instructors MM.....are looking out for their own image, not their students interests. How else could they explain why they dont have a turbine job?
If there was more prestige in driving a piston they would tell you you need a lot more experience than driving a turbine. God forbid you find out MM's job is easier than yours.
Last edited by mjbow2; 17th Mar 2003 at 04:16.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: By the Bay
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why turbine time?
Insurance company requirements, inflated egoes, insurance company requirements, dollars, insurance company requirements, tradition, insurance company requirements, do ya time young fella, insurance company requirements!
Turbines are more comfortable, more fun and WITH GOOD TRAINING far easier to fly.
I only spaek from my GA and regional turbo-prop experience as I dont have jet time.
I do stress the WITH GOOD TRAINING bit though.
Other than all that,
it is just 'cos thats how things are and probably always will be!!
Do ya time, keep ya nose clean and listen to the old farts! They are old for a reason. Remember the "old pilots, bold pilots" bit??
Cheers,
I'm gone!
Insurance company requirements, inflated egoes, insurance company requirements, dollars, insurance company requirements, tradition, insurance company requirements, do ya time young fella, insurance company requirements!
Turbines are more comfortable, more fun and WITH GOOD TRAINING far easier to fly.
I only spaek from my GA and regional turbo-prop experience as I dont have jet time.
I do stress the WITH GOOD TRAINING bit though.
Other than all that,
it is just 'cos thats how things are and probably always will be!!
Do ya time, keep ya nose clean and listen to the old farts! They are old for a reason. Remember the "old pilots, bold pilots" bit??
Cheers,
I'm gone!