Can't work here without some twin-time son!
 

At the risk of starting a war between the haves and the have nots....:cool:

Why do the majority of operators require so much multi-engine PIC time for multi-engine jobs?

A multi driver once told me it was because you needed to understand the limitations and risks posed by losing an engine. All fine except anyone who has operated in high DAs or operated fully loaded helicopters (particularly in confined areas) will truly understand what limited power means.

So, if a candidate has the right amount of turbine PIC, is accident/violation free, has good references etc etc, why shouldn't they be considered?

As my crusty CFI used to say 'the bloody helicopter doesn't know it's got two engines'. I can appreciate the requirement for planks (asymmetric ops etc) but not so clear about helicopters.

Is it merely uninformed insurance agency requirements or is there something else to it?

Serious question, not trying to make a point, just wondering what the rest of the industry thinks... :ok:

It's often because of client requirements set out in a contract with the operator.

Mmmmmmm ....

Always the same type of question ... the answer is also because when you go into a twin the level of systems complexity of the aircraft is increased, the tasks and envoironment of operations more complex and unless you manage to get a job where you can be mentored (say by being a co-pilot) the possibility of f**king it up if something goes wrong is increased as well.

That is what the insurance companies want when they look at coverage .... "Is the Captain of the aircraft experienced enough to cope..... has he the experience to NOT PUT THE AIRCRAFT IN PERIL by making an incorrect command decision ..... and sometimes it has been recognised this requires time in the aircraft doing the job.

Yes I know this is the "Catch 22" in the industry ...but believe me you can cause a mountain of grief very quickly by making that wrong decision ....just look at a couple of current threads on this forum to see what I mean.

Cheers "spinny"

Can the candidate not obtain this type of experience (in command) through flying singles at all?

Hiring Points!
 

Speaking of multi-time.

Did anyone see the operator advertising on Just Helicopters last week looking for Captains and Co-Pilots. No pay for the Co-Pilots, just "hiring points" :=

Any thoughts on this?

Ridiculous requirements
 

It's like the 'old boys club', it's just a way of weeding out people who are not 'in the twin club'. Typical England. Twins are a little more complex, but it's no big deal.

It used to be 1000 hours before anyone would consider you for commercial work, then it was 1000 hours and 200 hours turbine, then it was 1000 hours, 200 turbine, 50 on type, now it's 2,000 hours, 500 twin time, 100 night, etc etc. It's not about safety.

It's exactly about safety!
The complexity of the aircraft AND the task may require a good level of twin experience. You can not get twin engine operational exposure and experience by flying in a single. What about AOC at night, in IFR, offshore, police, etc?
The owner/operator will want proven experience and competency before letting someone loose in a $5-20M helicopter.
Most of the onshore twin positions require Captains so there is little opportunity to train/coach a low/no time twin pilot.

People were flying twins a few years ago with very little twin time in their logbook and I don't notice any difference in the accident stats these days.

windowseatplease, just curious, are you a twin driver yourself?

There is quite a bit of difference between operating a single engine helicopter in a limited power situation, and a twin engine helicopter after an engine failure. If Category A profiles are used, there is a huge difference in thinking and planning and procedures.
Systems complexity approaches that of an airliner in most twins that are of any size.

This is sort of like thinking that multi-motored FW are no different than single engine FW.

I think it also has to do with CRM experience, or lack of it?

Our off shore operation was flying single pilot on 205's when we went to twins (212). No one in the company had any twin time what so ever. My log records 10.55 hours dual, 2 hour check ride and 15 hours ICUS before being let loose single pilot. We had an absolutely outstanding flight and ground instuctor. Ground school lasted a week with a written exam on each of the systems. Absolutely no one had any problem adapting to twin operations and I don't really know or understand what the fuss is about when it comes to twins, you don't have the asymetric handling problems that come with multi fix wing that require a deft pair of hands and feet.

twin time
 

The OGP Aircraft Management Guide does not require any multi-engine experience for co-pilots in either over or under 5700kgs MAUW helicopters. It even allows for conversion training to be given if the candidate does not have the requisite 50 hours on type. Somebody is obviously thinking about the future. New types with complex FMSs give even experienced pilots more problems than two engines ever did. A lack of "twin time" shouldn't keep a good man down.

I personnally think the whole multi engine 'black art' thing is a load of tosh. Say someone has 1000 multi engine hours flying say the same mundane task day in day out (I don't know , say out to a rig in VMC by day)- how is he/she any more qualified than say a chap who has lots of single only time in a more demanding environment such as EMS ops at night (lots of people do it) , NVG in ordinary conditions, IFR (yes some people do that to) etc etc.

I think it has got a lot to do with the individual (training, attitude, skill sets etc) as opposed to how many multi hours he might have. Case in point are RAN Seahawk pilots (and dare I say it RN lynx pilots). These guys go from a Squirrel to single pilot IFR (yes they have an observer in the LHS) 22000lb multi engined aircraft and I am not aware of one aircraft loss in the many years they have been operated..stand to be corrected. While I think of it what about some 22 year old who is flying around in his F18, F15 or whatever....I don't think there is an advert out there saying fast jet pilot required...require 500 hours multi time!

Yes some multi engine helicopters are more complex but thats where good training and a suitable individual with the the right attributes comes in. Off the soap box now.;)

Turkey

Or with a couple of thousand hours twin time, including IF, some of it on a type that can be operated single or multi-pilot depending on circumstances but unemployable in a multi-crew environment, even as a co-pilot, without MCC training..............................

There are operators out there who fly single engine, multi-crew IFR in reasonably demanding environments....

That's something I've asked before, what is it with this increase in experience requirements?

What kind of experience level (i.e. hours) would a Service pilot have when arriving at a front-line squadron?

Hi Shawn, long time, no see.
 

I agree with you. I also think that that given a well experienced single engine pilot after about 10 good training hours in a twin with about the same size and performance, (like a 205A1 pilot moving into a 212) the mission would be completed just as well and just as safely.

In UK these days at least, much of this is driven by requirements of the insurance company.

(555 hours single engine turbine).

There are philosophical differences between flying singles and twins. as well as philosophical differences by the operators that use both.

In a single an engine failure is an emergency landing, in a twin -in most flight regimes-it is not.

I've flown with co-pilots that had alot os single engine time and they really struggled with CRM. If I had the choice I would sooner have a competent low time pilot as a co-pilot than a high-time single engine pilot.

The twin engine world is usually a night/IFR or Offshore environment. In a single there are few systems to manage while in most twins the pilot is a systems manager.

One cannot compare the military to civilian. The military keep only those that are able to progress in the prescribbed sylybus and have the best training avialable. They are also constantly monitored.

Engine failure rates for turbine engines are around 1/100,000. In a twin you are twice as likely to have an engine failure, granted the consequences should be less severe.

Now if we are talking about flying a Bell 212 VFR or a turbine single there is really not much difference.