PC-12 time
airag2
Unfortunately I think the airlines both regional and major are still behind the times when it comes to single engine turbine. They still require the multi time. I can’t see this changing until more single engine turbines come onto the seen to replace the aging piston twin fleets of the world. It all gets down to supply and demand. At the moment they can get what they want out of GA by asking for X hrs of multi engine time, both piston and turbine. When they can’t, they will change their requirements.
Unfortunately I think the airlines both regional and major are still behind the times when it comes to single engine turbine. They still require the multi time. I can’t see this changing until more single engine turbines come onto the seen to replace the aging piston twin fleets of the world. It all gets down to supply and demand. At the moment they can get what they want out of GA by asking for X hrs of multi engine time, both piston and turbine. When they can’t, they will change their requirements.
You are entitled to your views Xred, but the issue is quite relevant to lots of airlines being somewhat behind the times.
A thorough understanding of a PC12, with its EFIS and other modern equipment is far more relevant to an airline pilot's experience than hours in a 35 year old Navajo/401.
Face it, the only time that the multi experience is relevant is in the case of an engine failure, and how many of us have had one for real?
A thorough understanding of a PC12, with its EFIS and other modern equipment is far more relevant to an airline pilot's experience than hours in a 35 year old Navajo/401.
Face it, the only time that the multi experience is relevant is in the case of an engine failure, and how many of us have had one for real?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xkred that wasn't really necessary. The assymetric aspect is perhaps still being considered by the regulators and airlines. I think having a bit of assy work under your belt can be beneficial (i.e. initial endorsements and subsequent renewals for G.A. ops) but it is nothing a bit of QUALITY simulator training couldn't instill to prepare you for airline flying.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sometimes here usual out there!
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xkred27
How Dumb are YOU!!
I have stuff all time on twins but everytime I get one to fly a high performance single they are nothing to brag about.
One, two, three or four engines, when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter how many engines you have you still can have 100% of them shut down.
These rules and regs for single engines were written before the forties and have never really been updated.
Engines are a lot more reliable and gone are the days we need more than one noise maker to be safe.
Think about it. would like to be up nice and high, IFR in a PC 12, smooth, quiet, quick. or down low in a noisy, clapped old Duchess!
Which do you think is safer??
Which pilot would have the skills required to pilot a 737??
Not the clapped out piston banger, thats for sure.
I am not sure on speed so maybe someone can clarify, but doesn't a PC 12 cruise about 40% faster than most light twins.
Isn't it a slippery as sh@t requiring alot of planning for decents etc???
xkred27 maybe you are one of these airline hiring guys that think just because they had to fly sh#tty twin, everyone should.
As for the regs, if the airlines wanted them changed they would.
One last thought
Sperm Bank....
how much ASSY time do you have??? how many engine failures have you had??
I've had three, and twice having a second engine would have just been extra balast.
How Dumb are YOU!!
I have stuff all time on twins but everytime I get one to fly a high performance single they are nothing to brag about.
One, two, three or four engines, when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter how many engines you have you still can have 100% of them shut down.
These rules and regs for single engines were written before the forties and have never really been updated.
Engines are a lot more reliable and gone are the days we need more than one noise maker to be safe.
Think about it. would like to be up nice and high, IFR in a PC 12, smooth, quiet, quick. or down low in a noisy, clapped old Duchess!
Which do you think is safer??
Which pilot would have the skills required to pilot a 737??
Not the clapped out piston banger, thats for sure.
I am not sure on speed so maybe someone can clarify, but doesn't a PC 12 cruise about 40% faster than most light twins.
Isn't it a slippery as sh@t requiring alot of planning for decents etc???
xkred27 maybe you are one of these airline hiring guys that think just because they had to fly sh#tty twin, everyone should.
As for the regs, if the airlines wanted them changed they would.
One last thought
Sperm Bank....
how much ASSY time do you have??? how many engine failures have you had??
I've had three, and twice having a second engine would have just been extra balast.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello
I think the point has been missed here.
How is single engine turbo - prop time viewed by airlines. Unfortunately no it is not viewed in regard. They want twin time. period.
Sure the PC12 has King Air type performance and old ****ty twins are unsafe and outdated. But I don't s make the rules. They want twin time. I was told from the start as far as single engine time goes. It counts for zero. They will only count twin time. Certainly from a pilots point of view I would have preferred to fly a PC12 (daytime only) than a clapped out Chieften but in any case I do still feel safer with 2.
Efis experience does not take time to gain and an endorsement on the a/c with efis is normally sufficient. The efis in a PC12 would not be full glass in any case. I was faced with 1500 hours and no twin time. I had to quit a full time job to fly casually. Once a week at the start to gain twin time. If you perservere and have the ablity the sky is the limit.
Good luck
I think the point has been missed here.
How is single engine turbo - prop time viewed by airlines. Unfortunately no it is not viewed in regard. They want twin time. period.
Sure the PC12 has King Air type performance and old ****ty twins are unsafe and outdated. But I don't s make the rules. They want twin time. I was told from the start as far as single engine time goes. It counts for zero. They will only count twin time. Certainly from a pilots point of view I would have preferred to fly a PC12 (daytime only) than a clapped out Chieften but in any case I do still feel safer with 2.
Efis experience does not take time to gain and an endorsement on the a/c with efis is normally sufficient. The efis in a PC12 would not be full glass in any case. I was faced with 1500 hours and no twin time. I had to quit a full time job to fly casually. Once a week at the start to gain twin time. If you perservere and have the ablity the sky is the limit.
Good luck
Turbo...
It seems that it doesn't really matter how high the local PC-12 driver fella's around here (about 4 on the airfield at any one time plus the odd itinerant one), are when they get to 30nm to run to destination coz that's about when they seem to always call inbound from anywhere from FL's 110 to 170.
Man, talk about "make like a stone"!
They make my shortfield landings and take-offs look quite ordinary in comparison to whay they regularly achieve with little or no sweat.
Regards,
Ops.
Man, talk about "make like a stone"!
They make my shortfield landings and take-offs look quite ordinary in comparison to whay they regularly achieve with little or no sweat.
Regards,
Ops.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo otter I would hate to tell you this but with the pc-12 being pressurised and turbine it takes a lot less planning and monitoring during the descent, than a chieftain for instance.
True not many people have had an engine failure but how about the skills gained when say a waste gate sticks on take off and you get one engine accelerating faster than the other, also there is the management aspect of two separate engines and fuel systems, although it is easy, its something extra to think about.
I have also found the main difference from flying light twins as opposed to turbines, is when you are in a light twin in crappy weather with cells, ice high terrain, etc you build your skills of situational awareness allot better than if you are sitting in a nice quite turbine with weather radar, de-ice and bleed air to keep you warm, not to mention the fact that pressurisation means that the leeks go away from you so you stay dry.
You learn allot of things in the clapped out old planes in your first jobs, when you get pushed to do things you blindly do due to inexperience, these things cant be learnt well any other way,
Descents, EFIS systems, Turbine, Jets can all be learnt very easily.
I noticed a note about, a duchess driver, and a pc-12 driver and which one would be better equipped to fly a 737, the answer is either, depending on which one has the most experience, never judge a pilot by what they are flying, I fly everything from jets to Cherokees, does that mean when I am in a Cherokee, I am a bad pilot????
DoD
True not many people have had an engine failure but how about the skills gained when say a waste gate sticks on take off and you get one engine accelerating faster than the other, also there is the management aspect of two separate engines and fuel systems, although it is easy, its something extra to think about.
I have also found the main difference from flying light twins as opposed to turbines, is when you are in a light twin in crappy weather with cells, ice high terrain, etc you build your skills of situational awareness allot better than if you are sitting in a nice quite turbine with weather radar, de-ice and bleed air to keep you warm, not to mention the fact that pressurisation means that the leeks go away from you so you stay dry.
You learn allot of things in the clapped out old planes in your first jobs, when you get pushed to do things you blindly do due to inexperience, these things cant be learnt well any other way,
Descents, EFIS systems, Turbine, Jets can all be learnt very easily.
I noticed a note about, a duchess driver, and a pc-12 driver and which one would be better equipped to fly a 737, the answer is either, depending on which one has the most experience, never judge a pilot by what they are flying, I fly everything from jets to Cherokees, does that mean when I am in a Cherokee, I am a bad pilot????
DoD
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sometimes here usual out there!
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.o.D
I know what your gettin at, and I totally agree.
What your saying is that pistons are harder to fly than Jets and turbines. Well I totally agree. Flying in a nice fully IFR aircraft sure is a **** load easier than flying the general ute on a ****ty day down low, slow and rough.
But that I feel is another topic totally.
The Airlines count twin, not single. That the problem, period.
Like you said they should look at what you did.
Meat Bombing with a twin Otter or a VFR Aztec out of Horn or maybe an IFR single sched flight.
But they don't. That's what's wrong at it is stupid. And why is it like this, cause it's been like that for a long long time and I don't think we're ever going to change it.
I agree with yo EFIS and all that other Sh@t that makes life easier can easily be learnt!
I remember my boss and chief pilot talking about getting another pilot, "Get the one with the biggest t!ts!!"
I know what your gettin at, and I totally agree.
What your saying is that pistons are harder to fly than Jets and turbines. Well I totally agree. Flying in a nice fully IFR aircraft sure is a **** load easier than flying the general ute on a ****ty day down low, slow and rough.
But that I feel is another topic totally.
The Airlines count twin, not single. That the problem, period.
Like you said they should look at what you did.
Meat Bombing with a twin Otter or a VFR Aztec out of Horn or maybe an IFR single sched flight.
But they don't. That's what's wrong at it is stupid. And why is it like this, cause it's been like that for a long long time and I don't think we're ever going to change it.
I agree with yo EFIS and all that other Sh@t that makes life easier can easily be learnt!
I remember my boss and chief pilot talking about getting another pilot, "Get the one with the biggest t!ts!!"
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: oz
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I look at it this way airag2,
The airlines and larger regionals don't operate singles so single time isn't relevant to them, except of course when total flying experience is taken into consideration.
However,
turbine time is relevant and you're getting plenty of that on the PC 12.
How much twin time do you have anyway?
Cheers.
The airlines and larger regionals don't operate singles so single time isn't relevant to them, except of course when total flying experience is taken into consideration.
However,
turbine time is relevant and you're getting plenty of that on the PC 12.
How much twin time do you have anyway?
Cheers.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys guys guys
Arent we behaving like Grandmas at a CWA Cake competion.
Regulartory requirements aside. The Single Engine Turbine is here stay. The PC-12 is a great aircraft with Glass I might add. Everheard the addage "no glass no class".
My Job here is about to end. The Twin Otters I fly are going back to Canada. The Company blames a new road for low load factors. So the Competitor who Operates Caravans is jumping for joy and ordering another. Progression out with the Old in with the New.
I have enough Multi, and quite interested in the PC-12. I think it would be a great learning test bed, for the Glass PANEL and the pressurisation and decent profiles and the rest, its invaluable experience. I would go for it myself.
The Bigger the MODERN Turbo prop the easier it is in Assymetirc performance, anyway. So struggling to maintain Circuit Altitude in a FAT C402B on 40 degree day one screaming TSIO520 is good experience, but hey who needs it really!
We have to embrace the Future guys, Single engine Turbines and A320 F/O s with 300TT, or Cadet Training Schemes, are the way of the new world, so we have to lump it or leave it.
Regards
Sheep
P.S. I might go back to Electronics !
Arent we behaving like Grandmas at a CWA Cake competion.
Regulartory requirements aside. The Single Engine Turbine is here stay. The PC-12 is a great aircraft with Glass I might add. Everheard the addage "no glass no class".
My Job here is about to end. The Twin Otters I fly are going back to Canada. The Company blames a new road for low load factors. So the Competitor who Operates Caravans is jumping for joy and ordering another. Progression out with the Old in with the New.
I have enough Multi, and quite interested in the PC-12. I think it would be a great learning test bed, for the Glass PANEL and the pressurisation and decent profiles and the rest, its invaluable experience. I would go for it myself.
The Bigger the MODERN Turbo prop the easier it is in Assymetirc performance, anyway. So struggling to maintain Circuit Altitude in a FAT C402B on 40 degree day one screaming TSIO520 is good experience, but hey who needs it really!
We have to embrace the Future guys, Single engine Turbines and A320 F/O s with 300TT, or Cadet Training Schemes, are the way of the new world, so we have to lump it or leave it.
Regards
Sheep
P.S. I might go back to Electronics !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alky,
Unfortunately a grand total of only 70hr multi and the turbine time I'm getting is in Ag not PC-12 ....... yet, but thats what may happen and why the original question was asked.
Unfortunately a grand total of only 70hr multi and the turbine time I'm getting is in Ag not PC-12 ....... yet, but thats what may happen and why the original question was asked.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bendigo
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I understand (not much usually)
PC-12 time would be considered valuable experince to the MAJOR airlines due to the high performance / turbine / glass cockpit element.
It is less attractive to the regionals as the likelyhood of being promoted to captain (CAO requirements as we've seen in above posts) is a lot faster than the majors. (as little as 12 - 18 months in exceptional circumstances)
The major airlines employ dispensations from certain CAO's under conditions that the pilots have trained and checked to a continual system approved by CASA. They must also have a certain experience requirement within that airline before undertaking command training. This is around 10 years down the track on average, still having not completed 500 multi command under planned IFR. (catdets for instance)
PC-12 eh? rekon that sounds like fun!!
PC-12 time would be considered valuable experince to the MAJOR airlines due to the high performance / turbine / glass cockpit element.
It is less attractive to the regionals as the likelyhood of being promoted to captain (CAO requirements as we've seen in above posts) is a lot faster than the majors. (as little as 12 - 18 months in exceptional circumstances)
The major airlines employ dispensations from certain CAO's under conditions that the pilots have trained and checked to a continual system approved by CASA. They must also have a certain experience requirement within that airline before undertaking command training. This is around 10 years down the track on average, still having not completed 500 multi command under planned IFR. (catdets for instance)
PC-12 eh? rekon that sounds like fun!!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over here in NZ twin time can only be logged as twin time if it is in an aircraft where assymetry is an issue, so you can't log for twins that push and pull (e.g. a Cessna 337), as symmetry shouldn't be an issue when one engine goes pop. That equally sucks, because surely keeping an overweight, underpowered aircraft in the air with balance issues is a feat on its own.