Turbine Experience. Why so important?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine Experience. Why so important?
My query is directed more towards turbo-prop than turbo-jet operations. Anyway, I was speaking to a friend yesterday, who happens to be an industry veteran with considerable time on both piston and turbo-prop/jet types.
We got onto the subject of hiring minimums, and the fact that quite a few employers won't look at you unless you've already got some turbine time in your logbook.
According to my friend, aside from the obvious speed increase, your King Air/Turbo Commander types etc should be easier to fly than a Chieftain! Engine management is easier, and going from 170 kts up to 250-270 kts is no big deal, because you're only going to see those higher numbers up in the cruise. Handling is effectively the same, and once you're back in the circuit pattern, speeds are effectively the same.
So unless the employer is looking for type-specific time, why the big deal about turbine experience? The way some operators talk about it, one would think you'd need a Space Shuttle endorsement before they'd let you near the thing!
I guess my point here is not so much about getting a job or not (I haven't actually applied or been knocked back for a job recently), but that some people out there seem to make it sound like flying a turbine is so much harder than it really is - and it isn't. Comments anyone?
We got onto the subject of hiring minimums, and the fact that quite a few employers won't look at you unless you've already got some turbine time in your logbook.
According to my friend, aside from the obvious speed increase, your King Air/Turbo Commander types etc should be easier to fly than a Chieftain! Engine management is easier, and going from 170 kts up to 250-270 kts is no big deal, because you're only going to see those higher numbers up in the cruise. Handling is effectively the same, and once you're back in the circuit pattern, speeds are effectively the same.
So unless the employer is looking for type-specific time, why the big deal about turbine experience? The way some operators talk about it, one would think you'd need a Space Shuttle endorsement before they'd let you near the thing!
I guess my point here is not so much about getting a job or not (I haven't actually applied or been knocked back for a job recently), but that some people out there seem to make it sound like flying a turbine is so much harder than it really is - and it isn't. Comments anyone?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunglerat
All to do with engine handling.
Your average PT6-42 or 60A engine comes with a price tag of around USD $1 million. One bad start can cost a fortune. A good turbine operator will ensure batteries meet minimum starting capacity, fuel cocks opened at the optimum RPM, acceleration is normal and ITT’s within the parameters. Cross generator starts will be managed to ensure the starting engine operates below temperature and the operating engine parameters are within limits. He/she will have a good knowledge of the emergency procedures should the start go wrong. Shut-downs will involve temperature stabilization.
Such engines are attached to an expensive airframe and avionics suite equivalent to about ten good Chieftains! You dismissed the speed issues but they are important and become a major event on short sectors. At altitude tailwinds of 100 kts or more further reduce time in the cruise to plan descents and arrivals. Also descents may normally occur at 200 KIAS and a couple of thousand feet per minute. The aircraft will probably have more complex systems, pressurisation, avionics, be operated in an icing environment and take considerable more skill in performance variables.
In our organisation, after endorsement, it takes about 50 hours ICUS interspersed with 50 hours RHS to become single pilot proficient on a B350 engaged in single crew operations. This is followed up with a recurrency course at FSI Wichita. So for the first 100-plus operational hours the pilot is drawing a salary but not contributing!
I guess most operators cannot afford the risk and expense of inexperienced turbine pilots regardless of their piston qualifications.
All to do with engine handling.
Your average PT6-42 or 60A engine comes with a price tag of around USD $1 million. One bad start can cost a fortune. A good turbine operator will ensure batteries meet minimum starting capacity, fuel cocks opened at the optimum RPM, acceleration is normal and ITT’s within the parameters. Cross generator starts will be managed to ensure the starting engine operates below temperature and the operating engine parameters are within limits. He/she will have a good knowledge of the emergency procedures should the start go wrong. Shut-downs will involve temperature stabilization.
Such engines are attached to an expensive airframe and avionics suite equivalent to about ten good Chieftains! You dismissed the speed issues but they are important and become a major event on short sectors. At altitude tailwinds of 100 kts or more further reduce time in the cruise to plan descents and arrivals. Also descents may normally occur at 200 KIAS and a couple of thousand feet per minute. The aircraft will probably have more complex systems, pressurisation, avionics, be operated in an icing environment and take considerable more skill in performance variables.
In our organisation, after endorsement, it takes about 50 hours ICUS interspersed with 50 hours RHS to become single pilot proficient on a B350 engaged in single crew operations. This is followed up with a recurrency course at FSI Wichita. So for the first 100-plus operational hours the pilot is drawing a salary but not contributing!
I guess most operators cannot afford the risk and expense of inexperienced turbine pilots regardless of their piston qualifications.
Blue Hauler, spot on the money, as usual. The price tag of a bad turbine start (low voltage, low Ng and high ITT at light off for example) starts at US$45,000, depending on how many bits pass thru the power section and out the exhaust.
Bunglerat, in simplistic terms maybe it's like suggesting because you can ride a push bike you should automatically qualify for a motor bike license.
Bunglerat, in simplistic terms maybe it's like suggesting because you can ride a push bike you should automatically qualify for a motor bike license.
More than anything as well, it's the old supply and demand! Also when it gets down to it, is most turbine operations outside of RPT are normally involved in contracted charter that normally has high pilot minimum hours built into the employee's contract. Same as the need for 2 crew on some turbines that can be legally flown by 1.
Bottums Up
Bunglerat,
I agree with much that's been said previously on this thread and add that one consideration is that most turbine powered aircraft are pressurised as well, so an employer wants to know that an applicant has experience and thus is hopefully less likely to have an expensive start.
I disagree to some extent with your comment re speed increase from 170 to 240 kts. It's a 40% increase in speed. Whilst this doesn't seem much, with lowish time it can, and often does, cause grief with flight management.
I well remember the difficulties I had on my first pressurised turbine, having about 1000 hrs non pressurised turbine in Twotters and Gonads. I couldn't get used to the low nose attitude and high rates of rescent required, as compared to my previous experience, and would arrive overhead Sydney ready for a space shuttle re-entry. Mohawks though, did come down well!
I disagree to some extent with your comment re speed increase from 170 to 240 kts. It's a 40% increase in speed. Whilst this doesn't seem much, with lowish time it can, and often does, cause grief with flight management.
I well remember the difficulties I had on my first pressurised turbine, having about 1000 hrs non pressurised turbine in Twotters and Gonads. I couldn't get used to the low nose attitude and high rates of rescent required, as compared to my previous experience, and would arrive overhead Sydney ready for a space shuttle re-entry. Mohawks though, did come down well!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies so far. Some good points raised, certainly as far as the $$$ stakes being higher if the exercise is mis-managed.
However, referring back to my original posting, what I'm saying is that the same issues apply for someone doing a turbo-charged piston endorsement as well. Every operator is going to be a bit cagey about some wet-behind-the-ears driver possibly blowing a turbo on his Chieftain, or shock-cooling it on descent, etc. The potential for a screw-up in a piston is no different to a turbine (notwithstanding the cost factor of course). So if someone can make the switch from, let's say a Duchess, to a PA31/C402 type - without any major hiccups - why should the transition from a PA31 to a B200 be as huge a leap as some make it out to be? I think that ultimately, as in all aspects of what we do, it comes down to good training. Lay a strong foundation, build a strong house. Or not, as the case may be...
However, referring back to my original posting, what I'm saying is that the same issues apply for someone doing a turbo-charged piston endorsement as well. Every operator is going to be a bit cagey about some wet-behind-the-ears driver possibly blowing a turbo on his Chieftain, or shock-cooling it on descent, etc. The potential for a screw-up in a piston is no different to a turbine (notwithstanding the cost factor of course). So if someone can make the switch from, let's say a Duchess, to a PA31/C402 type - without any major hiccups - why should the transition from a PA31 to a B200 be as huge a leap as some make it out to be? I think that ultimately, as in all aspects of what we do, it comes down to good training. Lay a strong foundation, build a strong house. Or not, as the case may be...
Blue H
You say it takes 50 hours ICUS plus about the same RHS to become proficient Single Pilot B350 along with a trip to ICT.
Does this mean the B350 is a lot more difficult than a B200 which seems to require a max of 50 ICUS for most Companies or does your organisation do more intricate tasks than the normal GA Coy?
Or are you talking about the lucky low time piston driver who scores a inside run to B350 command?
You say it takes 50 hours ICUS plus about the same RHS to become proficient Single Pilot B350 along with a trip to ICT.
Does this mean the B350 is a lot more difficult than a B200 which seems to require a max of 50 ICUS for most Companies or does your organisation do more intricate tasks than the normal GA Coy?
Or are you talking about the lucky low time piston driver who scores a inside run to B350 command?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunglerat
There is a big difference between an aircraft worth $300,000 and $4 million – lease repayments for a start. To break even the operator of the latter will need to keep the thing out of the hangar and in the air, or go to the wall. The former would probably only make a small blip in his cashbook. So an unthinking pilot or less experienced pilot poses a risk factor with expensive odds.
A turbo-charged piston endorsement is a good stepping stone. It teaches engine handling discipline and power adjustment techniques. The performance aspect is still a way short of turbines but moving in the right direction. A pilot who learns to operate such an aircraft proficiently will please a hiring turbine operator.
As I stated above, sooner or later follows the endorsement process and the enroute exposure and ICUS. If your future employer doesn’t have the spare cash to conduct such training and exposure he will opt for a pilot with the necessary experience on type and there my friend you would be between a rock and a hard place. If he likes your style he may pass over an experience pilot in preference to training someone in the company methods – no bad habits, but this involves expense that many GA turbine operators can ill afford.
As a hirer, and given our extensive training process, I would consider a minimum of 4,000 hours experience with at least 1,000 on Navajo – C400 series.
Megle2,
No I don’t suggest that the B350 is particularly more difficult than the B200. Our operation calls for three schedules a week of around seven hours flight time and some eight sectors. The aircraft is operated single pilot. My employers are very big on risk management and therefore consider reasonable expenses warranted hence the trip to KICT. Besides why risk an aircraft covering multiple emergencies in a busy terminal environment when Flight Safety or Simuflite at DFW do it so much better!
There is a big difference between an aircraft worth $300,000 and $4 million – lease repayments for a start. To break even the operator of the latter will need to keep the thing out of the hangar and in the air, or go to the wall. The former would probably only make a small blip in his cashbook. So an unthinking pilot or less experienced pilot poses a risk factor with expensive odds.
A turbo-charged piston endorsement is a good stepping stone. It teaches engine handling discipline and power adjustment techniques. The performance aspect is still a way short of turbines but moving in the right direction. A pilot who learns to operate such an aircraft proficiently will please a hiring turbine operator.
As I stated above, sooner or later follows the endorsement process and the enroute exposure and ICUS. If your future employer doesn’t have the spare cash to conduct such training and exposure he will opt for a pilot with the necessary experience on type and there my friend you would be between a rock and a hard place. If he likes your style he may pass over an experience pilot in preference to training someone in the company methods – no bad habits, but this involves expense that many GA turbine operators can ill afford.
As a hirer, and given our extensive training process, I would consider a minimum of 4,000 hours experience with at least 1,000 on Navajo – C400 series.
Megle2,
No I don’t suggest that the B350 is particularly more difficult than the B200. Our operation calls for three schedules a week of around seven hours flight time and some eight sectors. The aircraft is operated single pilot. My employers are very big on risk management and therefore consider reasonable expenses warranted hence the trip to KICT. Besides why risk an aircraft covering multiple emergencies in a busy terminal environment when Flight Safety or Simuflite at DFW do it so much better!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Hauler
There really isn't any other way, is there, if you can't afford the regime you describe, with, at least, annual recurrency in a Level "D" simulator somewhere, you really have no business being in that business.
Anything else is just pretend Second XI.
There really isn't any other way, is there, if you can't afford the regime you describe, with, at least, annual recurrency in a Level "D" simulator somewhere, you really have no business being in that business.
Anything else is just pretend Second XI.
Blue H
Got that, no problems. One question - If the Boss is big on Risk Management and the operation requires exposure to high work load ie airspace - Why not go with 2 pilots?
Gaunty
Are you saying that to operate a B350 you need a Sim level D annual refresher? Do any Aus B350 pilots go every year?
Mind you if I had the chance I would go.
Got that, no problems. One question - If the Boss is big on Risk Management and the operation requires exposure to high work load ie airspace - Why not go with 2 pilots?
Gaunty
Are you saying that to operate a B350 you need a Sim level D annual refresher? Do any Aus B350 pilots go every year?
Mind you if I had the chance I would go.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megle2
I'm saying that to operate ANY sophisticated turbine to a FULLY professional level, you need a Sim Level D annual refresher.
If there is not one available in the country, then you have to go wherever there is one.
The US seems to be the cheapest alternative overall.
The industry at large, as usual, has it upside down.
I draw a really long bow here, but you are probably safer in a new B350 "without" annual Level D recurrency than in a really old B200/Conquest clunker "with", if only because the likelihood of a problem occuring is less, because its newer.
The irony is that the B200/Conquest clunker operator is the least likely to understand and more likely be unable to afford the Level D training.
As usual the aircraft that are likely to require the MOST skill and experience are relegated to those with the LEAST
I'm saying that to operate ANY sophisticated turbine to a FULLY professional level, you need a Sim Level D annual refresher.
If there is not one available in the country, then you have to go wherever there is one.
The US seems to be the cheapest alternative overall.
The industry at large, as usual, has it upside down.
I draw a really long bow here, but you are probably safer in a new B350 "without" annual Level D recurrency than in a really old B200/Conquest clunker "with", if only because the likelihood of a problem occuring is less, because its newer.
The irony is that the B200/Conquest clunker operator is the least likely to understand and more likely be unable to afford the Level D training.
As usual the aircraft that are likely to require the MOST skill and experience are relegated to those with the LEAST
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
Correct, there isn’t really any other way. The airlines have been doing it for years. Annual recurrent training is the desirable minimum but not always achievable. Round trip fares, accommodation and the four-day course soaks up in excess of $30,000. But the FSI course is comprehensive and provides a sound basis for day to day operations. Their notes are very comprehensive and serve as a refresher platform for in-house training. Their SOP’s standardise and serve as a performance marker for checking against.
Unfortunately even my organisation has to work within budget constraints thereby preventing annual checks, so the check and training system has to kick in and that’s where experienced pilots play an important part.
Megle2,
I guess in a perfect world one would buy a twenty place aircraft and justify the second crew. But with a ten place aircraft and pilots who deliver a high standard of performance I think the second crew would be superfluous. Not to say that in some instances we don’t use a safety pilot in the second crew seat if the operation or risk management demands it.
Correct, there isn’t really any other way. The airlines have been doing it for years. Annual recurrent training is the desirable minimum but not always achievable. Round trip fares, accommodation and the four-day course soaks up in excess of $30,000. But the FSI course is comprehensive and provides a sound basis for day to day operations. Their notes are very comprehensive and serve as a refresher platform for in-house training. Their SOP’s standardise and serve as a performance marker for checking against.
Unfortunately even my organisation has to work within budget constraints thereby preventing annual checks, so the check and training system has to kick in and that’s where experienced pilots play an important part.
Megle2,
I guess in a perfect world one would buy a twenty place aircraft and justify the second crew. But with a ten place aircraft and pilots who deliver a high standard of performance I think the second crew would be superfluous. Not to say that in some instances we don’t use a safety pilot in the second crew seat if the operation or risk management demands it.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Interesting debate,
say why doesn't CASA mandate a rule for all turbo prop operaters to go to Flight safety/simuflite in the states and the OZ government will say pay for half the cost (wishfull thinking!!!!!!!), will this really improve safety that much in OZ??????
What is the realism of say a conquest, b200, metro, turbo commander sim anyway??? ie visuals, perf ie...... is it to airline standard????
Is a full american sim rating say on a westwind/metro etc.... better than a rating done in OZ in the actual aircraft??????
Interesting debate,
say why doesn't CASA mandate a rule for all turbo prop operaters to go to Flight safety/simuflite in the states and the OZ government will say pay for half the cost (wishfull thinking!!!!!!!), will this really improve safety that much in OZ??????
What is the realism of say a conquest, b200, metro, turbo commander sim anyway??? ie visuals, perf ie...... is it to airline standard????
Is a full american sim rating say on a westwind/metro etc.... better than a rating done in OZ in the actual aircraft??????
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Downwind
I have done two initial type ratings in the States on Level D simulators and the transition from simulator to aircraft is seamless. It is just as if you had spent the past twenty hours in the particular type. Full motion, full visuals day/night and a cockpit lifted straight off the Beech/Cessna assembly line, complete with EFIS, FMS, O2 masks, seat belts, cup holders, you name it.
The computer will generate a component failure and depending on your handling of the situation may lead to the self generation of further failures (eg: Engine fire - hydraulic failure - emergency gear extension - no flaps - miss the ILS - cant get the gear up to go around) most instructive!
Better than a rating done in OZ on the actual aircraft.
I have done two initial type ratings in the States on Level D simulators and the transition from simulator to aircraft is seamless. It is just as if you had spent the past twenty hours in the particular type. Full motion, full visuals day/night and a cockpit lifted straight off the Beech/Cessna assembly line, complete with EFIS, FMS, O2 masks, seat belts, cup holders, you name it.
The computer will generate a component failure and depending on your handling of the situation may lead to the self generation of further failures (eg: Engine fire - hydraulic failure - emergency gear extension - no flaps - miss the ILS - cant get the gear up to go around) most instructive!
Better than a rating done in OZ on the actual aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Hauler, I appreciate your extensive replies to this topic, and mostly agree with the points you make - but from your comments you are coming across more like an accountant than a pilot.
Yes, turbines are expensive bits of machinery - period. But that's not what I'm on about. Let me put it another way: If I won First Division Lotto tomorrow and decided to indulge some of the winnings on my own personal King Air, would it be an insurmountable task to get up to speed with no previous turbine experience?
Furthermore, seeing as I'm on this hypothetical tilt: What if some rich bloke bought the same aircraft with no previous flying experience whatsoever? Could this person be taught to fly in it?
The answer is yes. If this person had already logged a few hours in a conventional training aeroplane, then of course he's going to find it "difficult" because of the stark comparison between the two types. On the other hand, if the person has no benchmark on which to measure the aircraft against, how would he know if it were any more difficult to fly than the next aircraft? He would simply accept it for what it is - something new, unfamiliar, and of course challenging. But with a reasonable amount of maturity, common sense, dedication to the task - and of course the right training - he would probably make the grade in time. It's all relative.
Incidentally, I've had more than one occasion whilst flying a piston twin, when a hearty tailwind has contributed to a GPS groundspeed nudging 230 kts. Planning things like top-of-descent and slowing down to arrive in the circuit never seemed to be a problem, as long as I knew that things were happening a tad quicker and anticipated the fact. Many of the points raised so far are time management issues rather than technical ones (engine handling notwithstanding).
Yes, turbines are expensive bits of machinery - period. But that's not what I'm on about. Let me put it another way: If I won First Division Lotto tomorrow and decided to indulge some of the winnings on my own personal King Air, would it be an insurmountable task to get up to speed with no previous turbine experience?
Furthermore, seeing as I'm on this hypothetical tilt: What if some rich bloke bought the same aircraft with no previous flying experience whatsoever? Could this person be taught to fly in it?
The answer is yes. If this person had already logged a few hours in a conventional training aeroplane, then of course he's going to find it "difficult" because of the stark comparison between the two types. On the other hand, if the person has no benchmark on which to measure the aircraft against, how would he know if it were any more difficult to fly than the next aircraft? He would simply accept it for what it is - something new, unfamiliar, and of course challenging. But with a reasonable amount of maturity, common sense, dedication to the task - and of course the right training - he would probably make the grade in time. It's all relative.
Incidentally, I've had more than one occasion whilst flying a piston twin, when a hearty tailwind has contributed to a GPS groundspeed nudging 230 kts. Planning things like top-of-descent and slowing down to arrive in the circuit never seemed to be a problem, as long as I knew that things were happening a tad quicker and anticipated the fact. Many of the points raised so far are time management issues rather than technical ones (engine handling notwithstanding).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunglerat,
Beancounter? – I’m cut to the quick. You really know how to hurt a guy.
Joking aside if you manage an aviation department you can’t afford costly mistakes. Others depend upon my job besides me and I wouldn’t want to see them in the dole queues either!
Should you win lotto, by all means buy a B200 but employ an experienced type rated pilot with training qualifications to steer you to a safe end product. People do fail Flight Safety courses particularly if they lack experience. But I would rather crash the sim than the aeroplane.
230 Knots on descent – from what altitude? I have seen just under 450 knots G/S in a B350 leaving FL350! Then it got busy.
Beancounter? – I’m cut to the quick. You really know how to hurt a guy.
Joking aside if you manage an aviation department you can’t afford costly mistakes. Others depend upon my job besides me and I wouldn’t want to see them in the dole queues either!
Should you win lotto, by all means buy a B200 but employ an experienced type rated pilot with training qualifications to steer you to a safe end product. People do fail Flight Safety courses particularly if they lack experience. But I would rather crash the sim than the aeroplane.
230 Knots on descent – from what altitude? I have seen just under 450 knots G/S in a B350 leaving FL350! Then it got busy.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a photo in my archives somewhere of 405KTs on the DME in a 421 C @ FL250, some moons ago.
Got me into one of them jetstream thingies outa Perth en route to MEL, as it turned out I coulda made MEL direct, when I got back up into it, but chickened out at ADL.
"Say again your flight plan amendment times"
Had been following a GV around Oz for a week or so, he had been on a sales demo and I had been paddling around checking the traps.
He departed in front of me on climb to FL350 but requested reclear back down to FL250, as he found the jet with his flash gear on the way up.
It was only forecast to be 100 odd KTS but turned it on for us at over 200KTS.
Sparkling clear winter Sunday morning, smooth as silk.
Got me into one of them jetstream thingies outa Perth en route to MEL, as it turned out I coulda made MEL direct, when I got back up into it, but chickened out at ADL.
"Say again your flight plan amendment times"
Had been following a GV around Oz for a week or so, he had been on a sales demo and I had been paddling around checking the traps.
He departed in front of me on climb to FL350 but requested reclear back down to FL250, as he found the jet with his flash gear on the way up.
It was only forecast to be 100 odd KTS but turned it on for us at over 200KTS.
Sparkling clear winter Sunday morning, smooth as silk.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah they ain't harder to work with than pistons although power levers are a lot more sensitive than throttles. Same with speeds, if you're flying a twin cessna or piper an extra 70 knots goes unnoticed. Alas insurance companies dictate our destiny.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Druglord....one of the few noteworthy comments on this thread. Insurance companies indeed.
Blue Hauler....Give us all a break. Like so many in this industry, you make it sound so much more difficult and and duanting than it really is.
BUNGLERATE....you are right. The complexity of the tasks are all in the mind of the instructor. If your instructor was Blue Hauler you would never get to fly their Hallowed King Air. Its simply way beyond your pathetic piston popper experience.
At 207 TT hours I was being paid to start the engines on a Brasilia. It wasnt hard, it was easy. It wasnt risky for the company because I had been trained.....and suprise.....Ive never cooked an engine!
Please, stop making this flying thing out to be something its not.
Bunglerat....if there were a shortage of pilots then ones lack of experience in a turbine A/C would not be a barrier.
By asking for turbine experience on the application an employer simply reduced the likely stack of apps from 10 inches to 8 inches....
MJB
Blue Hauler....Give us all a break. Like so many in this industry, you make it sound so much more difficult and and duanting than it really is.
BUNGLERATE....you are right. The complexity of the tasks are all in the mind of the instructor. If your instructor was Blue Hauler you would never get to fly their Hallowed King Air. Its simply way beyond your pathetic piston popper experience.
At 207 TT hours I was being paid to start the engines on a Brasilia. It wasnt hard, it was easy. It wasnt risky for the company because I had been trained.....and suprise.....Ive never cooked an engine!
Please, stop making this flying thing out to be something its not.
Bunglerat....if there were a shortage of pilots then ones lack of experience in a turbine A/C would not be a barrier.
By asking for turbine experience on the application an employer simply reduced the likely stack of apps from 10 inches to 8 inches....
MJB
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2
QUOTE… At 207 TT hours I was being paid to start the engines on a Brasilia. It wasnt hard, it was easy. It wasnt risky for the company because I had been trained.....and suprise.....Ive never cooked an engine!…
Ah yes – all care and no responsibility. That just about sums it up.
If only we didn’t have to consider the punters down the back, get the pilot up and running in a turbine, good for the ego and all that jazz! At 207 hour I’m sure you would have had a Captain on board to bear those burdens. My case exactly!
QUOTE… At 207 TT hours I was being paid to start the engines on a Brasilia. It wasnt hard, it was easy. It wasnt risky for the company because I had been trained.....and suprise.....Ive never cooked an engine!…
Ah yes – all care and no responsibility. That just about sums it up.
If only we didn’t have to consider the punters down the back, get the pilot up and running in a turbine, good for the ego and all that jazz! At 207 hour I’m sure you would have had a Captain on board to bear those burdens. My case exactly!