Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

Turboprop transition to jet?

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

Turboprop transition to jet?

Old 13th Apr 2015, 19:57
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE]And while Easy apparently seem troubled at the transition training of these 'difficult' ex TP guys the training departments of BA, Monarch, Jet2, FlyDubai, Emirates and Qatar are currently hiring ex Flybe Dash guys at a rate of 20 a month by current reports.

Just because a Trainer tells you something, does not make it true /QUOTE]

Absolutely!

Certain people seems brainwashed by the Orange mist! JS is probably trying to butt wash his way into a certain third party training organisation.

There will always be certain hires that are more of a training challenge.
Deep and fast is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 20:50
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And while Easy apparently seem troubled at the transition training of these 'difficult' ex TP guys the training departments of BA, Monarch, Jet2, FlyDubai, Emirates and Qatar are currently hiring ex Flybe Dash guys at a rate of 20 a month by current reports.
Bar 2 British companies on that list (and not suggesting BA unless you live in south east) the sad thing is if they go to the other companies Flybe will probably be the best time of their professional lives in retrospect when they're old and grey and realising chasing dreams only bought a bit more money but no extra smiles.
Cliff Secord is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 07:45
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cliff Secord, you`re absolutely right!

Like I said before, it`s the misconception that pilots feel they need to fly something heavier in order to "progress" their career. I`ve fallen into the trap myself in the past and continue to warn new guys of the pros/cons, (especially when they`re looking further afield such as ME or Asia). To be perfectly honest, I think moving from a regional operator such as Flybe or Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart) to an LCC can actually be a backstep in their career, never mind an LCC further afield.

I`ve seen many ex regional guys returning after only a short time within the LCC`s and I know many others want to come back but can`t get back into the regional industry (TP).
microkid is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 09:13
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: hang on let me check
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seriously?
bringbackthe80s is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 09:37
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interested to know also if orange have a seniority order for command? IE if higher hours DEP join and meet the achieve company min requirement, does it come down to seniority number?
Deep and fast is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 10:48
  #86 (permalink)  
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TOD
Posts: 2,057
Received 40 Likes on 16 Posts
Having moved from a UK TP job to LCC I would make the following observations:

Pros:
I now have more money, more days off, more variety of work, more challenging/stimulating/interesting route network, improved job security, better prospects, better staff travel, better company systems, better flexible benefits, a great share scheme.

Cons:
Earlier starts/later finishes.

No regrets here nor amongst any colleagues who have made a similar move.
speedrestriction is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2015, 09:50
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With regards to the pros and cons of regional TP compared to LCC`s it does depend a lot on the operator, base & type. (Of course we are talking about the comparison of heavy glass cockpit TP operators).

Some of the issues with LCC`s:

It`s necessary to look at the rate of pay which can be about the same or even less than regional or long haul pay, you just have to work harder to earn that higher pay check.

The days can be extremely long resulting in the need for slightly more days off however you`ve still spent more hours at work. After a week of earlies, you really do need 3-4 days off to recover.

The issue of job security can be argued. LCC`s tend to have a huge fleet of either Boeing or Airbus aircraft. The issue is when the LCC suffers from an external shock (recession, fuel price,volcanic ash, accident etc) resulting in large cutbacks or even terminate completely. This obviously results in huge numbers of pilots fighting for a job on the same type. There`s a higher chance of getting a job if the type is in demand AND there are more "operators per type". Regional operators tend to operate smaller fleets however there are considerably more operators per type, especially for something like the ATR which is high in demand. Regional operators also tend to have more stability than other sectors throughout the ups and downs of economic fluctuations.

Benefits such as staff travel, pension etc depends heavily on the operator, e.g some regional operators have much better staff travel agreements e.g Aer Lingus Regional. Again, it really does depend which operators one compares.

There are many variables and everybody has a preference however it`s just something to think about.
microkid is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2015, 12:19
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, being "stuck" on a Dash 8 / ATR72 flying for a large operator from your home town is much different than flying a "light" TP in likes of Metroliner, Saab 340, Do-328, L410, etc. in a small company.

It's much more difficult to progress from a sub 20-ton non-EFIS TP to jet, especially to a normal airline (not charter airline with 2-3 aircraft), which offers stability. Especially if you want don't want to go to the right seat again for couple of years. Just look at the requirements of various jet companies in Europe and rethink...
FlyingStone is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2015, 14:38
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: planet earth
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have been a Captain at the same company as JS for the last 8 years. I used to be relaxed about whether the individual came from the cadets or was an experience TP operator. However over the last few years I have noticed a distinct change in the quality of Cadet.

Once again you can not and I am not tarring all with the same brush. The reality on the front line is there are quite few F/O who are operating because of the size of there wallet not there ability to operate the Airbus. Many of them would not be up to the challenge of a Dash 8 on a dark stormy evening. Having flown many types for different Airlines no one will convince me that a modern day jet is more difficult to fly than a TP.
u0062 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2015, 09:15
  #90 (permalink)  
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TOD
Posts: 2,057
Received 40 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by microkid

Some of the issues with LCC`s:

It`s necessary to look at the rate of pay which can be about the same or even less than regional or long haul pay, you just have to work harder to earn that higher pay check.....

The days can be extremely long resulting in the need for slightly more days off however you`ve still spent more hours at work...

The issue of job security can be argued. LCC`s tend to have a huge fleet of either Boeing or Airbus aircraft. The issue is when the LCC suffers from an external shock (recession, fuel price,volcanic ash, accident etc) resulting in large cutbacks or even terminate completely. This obviously results in huge numbers of pilots fighting for a job on the same type. There`s a higher chance of getting a job if the type is in demand AND there are more "operators per type". Regional operators tend to operate smaller fleets however there are considerably more operators per type, especially for something like the ATR which is high in demand. Regional operators also tend to have more stability than other sectors throughout the ups and downs of economic fluctuations.....
I can't agree with what you have said - I believe almost universally you will find that at an hourly rate of actually being in work ie. duty hours, LCCs pay more.

With regard to surviving economic shocks - just look around at which companies are expanding, which are contracting and which have disappeared over the last 20 years. The only way to survive economic shocks is to be cash rich and adaptive to market forces. Regional operators tend to be geographically constrained in the reach of their networks which severely limits their ability to redeploy assets into higher yielding markets.
speedrestriction is online now  
Old 19th Apr 2015, 12:55
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,471
Received 84 Likes on 49 Posts
..........Having flown many types for different Airlines no one will convince me that a modern day jet is more difficult to fly than a TP.
I totally agree. An Airbus A320 is much easier to operate than a Dash 8, and I have many hours on both.

If I owned a jet airline, I would only recruit turboprop pilots, because they have experience of flying in all the weather below FL250, and of flying simpler aircraft with less automatics, so their basic flying skills have to be of a high standard. This is cruicial when it all goes wrong in a big jet - you need experience of that more basic flying and first principles.

Last edited by Uplinker; 19th Apr 2015 at 13:05.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2015, 15:13
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Students find the ATR type rating to be much more difficult as it is more complicated than other medium sized turbofan aircraft for example. Despite avionics / automation is pretty much the same, turbofan pilots who are looking to progress on to heavy glass cockpit turboprop aircraft can find it a struggle. Hence why turbofan pilots can also be perceived as a training risk so it works both ways really.

With regards to the rate of pay I agree if you include the likes of the US then the regional pay is very poor in comparison. However Europe and other parts of the world the story can be quite different. I know from my own personal experience that my rate was a lot more than that of the typical LCC`s, it just depends on which airlines we`re comparing. I agree that an airline stands a fighting chance to survive any minor economic shocks if it is cash rich although any major shocks will certainly see major cutbacks with a lot of assets to redeploy. There is a very high dependence on seasonal demand with leisure routes being severely affected. Anyway, starting to diverge from topic here.
microkid is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2015, 20:38
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
funny things...flown jet and T/P trying to be back in T/P and absolutely no chance...
liftman is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2015, 10:12
  #94 (permalink)  
Geotracker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Why would be a TP more difficult than a Jet? I've done some old fashion TP aircraft simulator and there was nothing difficult about it concerning the procedures, just the handflying was more sensetive to inputs. But then again it was sim so I don't know about the real in-flight handling. But it looks quite like any Boeing or Airbus cockpit of today with all required automated and fligth guidance systems.

It's all question of training and getting used to it, it's normal for pilots that fly a jet like an Airbus for thousands of hours and will give it a try again on a TP will struggle in the beginning. I never met any person who would love to go back from jet to TP... only vice versa. So if the TP is that great to fly for, why does it's pilots always look for a jet opportunity?


There is no such thing the one is easier then the other. I guess it's an way of expression by frustrated TP pilots towards jet pilots who realise that they made the biggest mistake ever of taking a job on TP with the goal to advance in their carreer onto jet...
Times changed, but it's not only now, I remember even like 10 years ago a lot of people who flew TP struggled a lot to get a job on a jet or even never got it till today...


It's funny to see that ATR for example are copying the airbus cockpit layout with their ATR72-600! Don't forget also that TP's are flying at lower approach speeds and so you have more time to anticipate, prepare and correct while in a jet everyhting goes fast!
 
Old 20th Apr 2015, 11:20
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I went from a chieftan to a jet and got signed off on line training in the min 20 sectors. Sometimes it's the company calls and procedures that take a little more time. Speed of a jet, well it's basic maths to plan time against speed and altitude. But even now I fly with those who rely on vnav tod or just descend at a higher rate to always be below the optimum. I just think some people are lazy and that is where a cadet is strong. They are financed to the hilt and can't afford to f up.
Deep and fast is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2015, 11:40
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But even now I fly with those who rely on vnav tod or just descend at a higher rate to always be below the optimum. I just think some people are lazy and that is where a cadet is strong. They are financed to the hilt and can't afford to f up.
I partly agree with you.

I regularly see old guys in the left seat with thousands of hours jet time who seem to have zero clue about energy management and descend planning, but at the same time the reason why they never learn is because they got/get rusty because of the fear culture in some airlines regarding the stable approach criteria. Descend planning at FL390 is the same as descend planning at 6000' with 20 track miles to run, and yet I see more and more guys pulling the speed brake to get an extra 1500-2000' below profile in order 'to be on the safe side.'

This is complete nonsense, as IMHO being "low and slow" is just as bad as being "hot and high." Both cases show a huge lack of situational awareness and not having a rough idea about aircraft performance.

The new 'magenta line' and VNAV generation is in this circumstance just as lousy as the old 'magenta line' VNAV generation.

The only way to learn descent planning is to have lot's of experience, doing multiple sectors per day, having a willingness to learn, but also having a capable person in the LHS who really knows his/her aircraft and knows how far to let somebody screw it up in order for it to have a learning effect.

During my multiple sector low cost days, I can say that I learned the most from the Belgian colleagues! These people really knew their aircraft and I hold their airmanship and common sense in very very high regard!

Last edited by Bokkenrijder; 20th Apr 2015 at 12:06.
Bokkenrijder is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2015, 11:54
  #97 (permalink)  
Geotracker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well I see your points, but if these methods are available, why not using them? Personally I don't find anyhting lazy about it. Beside even calculating it by yourself doesn't require any complexe math formulars... Unless your in the French aviation of course which are known for their particular method of calculating things in a more complex way than their anglo-saxon neighboors!


It's not the fault of the cadets, but of training department. The cadets just execute what they have been taught. They copy from all what the professional experienced pilots do which they fly with ,so this nonsenses should stop.


At least Easy is creating place for cadets... If not where should they go then? Oh I guess they should leave the places available for the people who have chosen first a different carreer path in aviation like instructing or TP? Well times changed.
 
Old 20th Apr 2015, 12:25
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I see your points, but if these methods are available, why not using them? Personally I don't find anyhting lazy about it. Beside even calculating it by yourself doesn't require any complexe math formulars... Unless your in the French aviation of course which are known for their particular method of calculating things in a more complex way than their anglo-saxon neighboors!
Well, it could save your @ss one day if you need to get down in a hurry (fire), and besides that, the VNAV deviation is only 'valid' if you stay on the FMS centerline.

It's during radar vectors is where you see most people screw up their descent planning, because suddenly they have to use their brain and guesstimate the amount of track miles and number in sequence, how much you need for configuring at that particular LW, and also factor in tail/headwinds on final.

p.s. my experience is that most Brits were much much more of the 'just-do-as-your-told-and-follow-the-magenta-VNAV-line' persuasion, than for example the Spanish, Germans, French, Belgians or Dutch. Dumbing down aviation seems to be the name of the game these days.

The biggest nervous flyer was some hot shot Aussie who at 10nm and 3000' HAT would start with "I think ya need the gear mayte." My funniest experience was with an ex-Big Airlines captain who, from FL390 on, started pulling the speed brake each time VNAV (or whatever it was called on the iBus) was showing ±200' high. (we kept on getting intermediate level offs because of traffic just below us) He was a super nice guy but just for fun I started counting the number of times he pulled the speed brake during the entire descent, but I think I lost count somewhere after 20. The concept of being able to 'dive off the altitude' by simply selecting a slightly higher speed, or the fact that we might even get a few more track miles when being radar vectored by approach, seemed to be completely foreign to him.
Bokkenrijder is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2015, 13:56
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATR is Airbus, hence why there is a much closer commonality with avionics/FMS etc, especially the 600 series. Despite they are both "jets / turbines", it`s the engine management of heavy turboprops which creates the largest learning curve, the propeller creates a much longer list of potential problems, just take one look at the engine section of the QRH for an ATR compared to say a 737. Engine flameout scenarios can be complicated, handling & procedures during EFATO is a very different story to an Airbus or 737. Icing procedures can also be very complicated on the ATR.

Basic hand flying and normal procedures are pretty much the same, not too much difference in approach speeds actually. However on the other side of the coin, energy management during descent on the medium/large sized turbofans is a little more difficult to get used to initially.

They`re just slightly different machines, like Geotracker said, it`s just a case of getting used to it. Some pilots just adapt more easily than others. As we have seen, it`s not so much the difficulty but the perceived training risk from recruiters which often restricts movement between these two categories of aircraft. However, I`m sure more opportunities for turbofan pilots to progress their career on to similar sized turboprops will appear in the near future.
microkid is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2015, 14:12
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They`re just slightly different machines, like Geotracker said, it`s just a case of getting used to it.
Oh, I absolutely agree. It's the same feeling when you buy a new car, or driving you own car after having been on holidays and having driven a rental car for a few weeks. Also agree with the N-1 scenario, TP's are trickier and a lot less forgiving than jets.
Bokkenrijder is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.