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?

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.

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.

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.

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! :}

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...

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?

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!

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.

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.

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 :rolleyes:

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.

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??????:rolleyes:

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.

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).

:D

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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! :D

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.

druglord

mjbow2


Hmmmm....... now I wonder why that is so.;) :rolleyes:

You'd better go check and see if your workers comp cover, includes shooting oneself in the foot ??? :p :uhoh: :ouch:

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!!!!!!

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!

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......

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.

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'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.

mjbow2

Thanks very much for writting that, saved me the effort.

Why have experience turbine drivers?
Here's why -

http://www.billzilla.org/stator.jpg

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.

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.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/tenerife/photo.shtml

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.

:O

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'.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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!

Ever heard the saying, "The man who has the gold, (Turbine) Makes the rules" ? Simple as that , really..........