IR in ‘useful type’
 

Hi all

Given the change to Part 61 and a ‘multi class rating’, any potential employers want to comment on the advantages of doing an IR in a Baron 58 instead of a Duchess/Seminole/etc?

If a new hire has 20 hours (dual) in a heavier twin, is it in their favour?

Absolutely!

The simplest reason is a financial one for the potential employer - in that a candidate with 20 or so hours in a Baron / C310 or similar (ie a type, or similar type) to what they use in their business - will be as unlikely to need the amount of training (either type familiarisation or line training) as a candidate who has no exposure to those aircraft.

Further, the learning standard that can be gained from the "heavier" (ie faster / more powerful) twin will be higher, for the following reasons:

• the candidate will have better learnt to manage speed / profile (ie in transition from a "high speed" cruise / descent into the initial segment of an IAP - the smaller twins don't really need to consider this, but mismanagement of this is a common fault amongst new IR MEA pilots);
• better skills in managing engines (especially OEI). In a Partenavia, et al - following an engine failure, the management is relatively simple - flog the live engine at (near) max power just to keep the aircraft flying straight and level... Where's the learning in that? A Baron at training weights will fly all day on one engine provided that the engine is managed. Speed profile considerations (ie cruise at Vyse+10 kts), diversions and the enactment of OEI "escape" plans after take-off are all able to be properly trained in such an airplane. For example - a really good exercise to train with a student is a take-off into simulated minimums, suffer an EFATO, then fly out the pre-briefed OEI contingency (escape) plan, complete failure management process at a safe altitude / location and then either return to the aerodrome of departure or divert to the take-off alternate for an IAP recovery. All without restoring the "failed" engine! Can't do that in a Partenavia / Seminole...

Finally, the myth of cost...

Yes, the larger aircraft costs more per hour - but the overall cost of the entire rating is not that much different (if at all). Many providers put their Duchesses / Seminoles or Partenavias out for $600-700 per hour. Barons in a training organisation are usually about $100 / hour more than that. BUT, the transit time between locations in a nav will be less (meaning more time for approaches / scenarios of value, etc) and if trained properly (ie with an industry-experienced instructor and LOTS of sim before getting into the aircraft for the first time) - the candidate will be ready for test in the minimum number of hours. This means that the cost differential should be only about $1000-$2000 tops. However, I see that some providers (often the larger VET schools) offer the most expensive IR training (in the smaller aircraft) with one putting the IR in a Partenavia out to market for over $30,000...

By comparison, an IR done in a Baron should be about $22,500 without CR training (with the CR added, call it another $5,000).

My only caveat on this is that I think a pilot should not do a CR MEA or IR until after they have done some consolidation in the industry in VFR ops in something like a C210 / PA32. That is to allow them to gain some intuitive "aircraft sense", problem solving experience and will really enhance the benefit of the training they get at this level. Yep, that would be the "traditional" path...

I have a dog in this fight, so to speak - so my opinion is not unbiased - but I am so firm in my belief of the value of the above that I have bought two E55 Barons (ie the B55 airframe with the larger IO-520 engine as found on a B58) for my Company and we use these for initial CR training and IR. We have certainly had solid levels of success with hitting our client's budgetary targets and more importantly - employability expectations. Just one example is that a candidate we completed training with less than two months ago (with less than 1000 hrs total time) is now in his first ME job - flying a C441 Conquest, as single pilot. I lose no sleep over this as he has received good training in a good airplane. Our other recent clients have all "advanced" in their jobs, too. It really does matter what aircraft you train in, and where / who you train with!

I wouldn’t waste the money. GA operators are so desperate for pilots they’re not in a position to be picky with the finer details like that.

If where you're planning to train has lots of airports with appropriate approaches at around 15 minutes apart (in a smaller, slower twin), I would say pick the small one, it's going to be cheaper.

If, on the other hand, the area is a bit more spread out (ie: Melbourne, with 20-30 minute commute between approaches, and especially to CTAFs), getting a faster twin might actually negate the extra time flying. Plus, having flown faster twins, you do get (as mentioned above) exposed to more of the kind of discipline you'd need in real world twin IFR ops

Also seems to be why they are not doing proper refference checks on pilots and getting badly burnt a few months later when a simple phone call would have saved them thousands. Seen the results of this first hand.

The industry is turning fast... Well until the Coronas dry up...

Many experiences guys looking for work, that’s just expats.

Now look at Tiger...

What does this do? Fills up any job on the market.

Anything to get the competitive advantage as long as it doesn’t cost you what you can’t afford.

There is another side to that point of view.

The chances of a new CPL inadvertently (or because of commercial pressures to get the job done at minimum time and cost) getting caught out in marginal visibility is high. Consolidation does not mean the VFR pilot will be flying CAVOK every charter flight night or day. Night VFR can still be legal on the darkest of nights and that is when you want to be experienced on instrument flying because you will be on instruments and no visible horizon in the outback.

In the old days the RAAF taught basic under the hood instrument flying on Tiger Moths and Wirraways a few hours after first solo. The sooner you start instrument flying training the better pilot you become both in navigation aid flying and instrument interpretation. When faced with poor visibility half way through your first few VFR charter flights, and you are reluctant to turn back in case the boss gets angry, the fear of losing your job can cause you to press on hoping the weather gets better at the destination.

The CPL training requirement of ten hours of dual under the hood simulated instrument flying is basically worthless in terms of real life flying in cloud. By going straight on to an instrument rating course after passing the CPL you become a true professional pilot rather than just a sunny weather CPL. It could also save your skin if you find yourself in IMC while trying to maintain VFR. All this IMHO

I don't dispute your comments, Centaurus - I am a former military QFI - so am well versed in what is taught to the trainees in that system...

However, as with everything in life - it's a trade-off. The military has (virtually) unlimited resources to spend on training a pilot before they go out to "work" whereas the young CPL hopeful does not - so they have a different set of challenges and considerations to balance.

Further, the military trainee is expected to be able to go straight to their Squadron after training and operate - so all their skills need to be taught during the initial training phases in the "school house". Civvie pilots have the potential benefit of developing their skill sets in stages, gaining a new skill following a consolidation period of refining the "old" one... However, the risk you raise is real - however if taught properly, by an experienced Instructor with good time in the real industry, the young trainee will be aware of and alert to that problem - and hopefully able to avoid or cope with it.

The 10 hr requirement for dual IF for the CPL should not be a worthless exercise - at the very least with that IF time the pilot should be able to keep the aircraft upright, turn it around, climb or other basic manoeuvre and manage turbulence to some extent to break visual and head towards a known navaid / location in clear air / low ground - ie conduct what I teach to be an "inadvertent IMC" drill / procedure. Are you saying this is not taught in flying schools these days? I damn well hope so...

Yes, new guys with SFA IMC time get into trouble even with a CIR (eg the AF coffin charter C210 out of DN a couple of years ago) , let alone only with NGT VFR or less. The more the better and before you go looking for a job, is a far safer idea.
Also the CP will hire the pilot with a CIR ahead of the one without because he won't want the pilot taking time off a few months later to go and do it. From the pilot's point of view, will he have the time to study if he is flogging a C210/206 around all day doing big flight+duty times ?
The other thing the CP will look at is the rego of the Baron that the CIR was done in - and making a note to himself not to cross-hire that asymmetric little morsel.

It's good to get Baron time in the book, and as you say it may be cheaper, but how to you find doing full asymmetric EFATOs re shock cooling your barrels and heads ?
Also do you teach timed instrument circling approaches ? Someone has to - people I checked out years ago often never heard of them and started doing all kinds of scary **** the second they got visual at the bottom of a otherwise good approach.

I disagree about Partenavia / Seminole / etc re "flog the live engine at (near) max power just to keep the aircraft flying straight and level... Where's the learning in that?" Simple - to get used to flying a normal aircraft on a dark scungey night with ice on the airframe and one of your favorite engines inoperative. Flying an aircraft with even a slight negative VSI for the first time despite everything you are doing is a psychological hurdle best got over in controlled circumstances than in the real deal. Still I suppose you can simulate the need for max performance flying in a Baron exercise by pulling the good one back a tad.

I nominate this post for the category of ‘posts that did not age well’

Shock cooling? No issue. My experience with Barons, PA31 and C402, etc shows this is normally a problem resulting from poor power and mixture management during descent from altitude rather than an EFATO drill.

Timed circling approaches? Absolutely! Doesn’t everybody teach this?? 👍

I will employ a good candidate with Baron time ahead of the same candidate with Duchess or Seminole time every day of the week. They can be slotted into our Charter ops straight away with less fuss and planning, and (hopefully) less ICUS. +1 for all Flying Bear has said.

Dunno, do they ? What positioning techniques do they teach (and test at renewal time) ?