Jump to content

instrument prefered


Astro

Recommended Posts

I've seen a number of job posts that prefer, or sometimes require an instrument rating, even though it seems the operation does not involve IFR flight, and many times not even IFR approved helicopters. So for someone who is already a helicopter pilot, and who doesn't currently need the instrument for work, which would be the cheapest way to get the rating? Doing it in an R44, or getting a fixed-wing add-on then a fixed wing instrument rating? Plus would a company who requires the rating but does not actually fly IFR care if if were fixed and not rotor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheapest way: If you hold a fixed wing rating, go get 25 hours instrument training in a plane then do your last 15 hours in a 22 or 44 before your check ride (perfectly legal). The downfall to this is that some EMS companies require X number of instrument hours in category, some may not care as long as you have the rotorcraft instrument ticket.

 

The second question would require confirmation from the specific company, but I would assume since it is a helicopter job that they would want (require) it in category. I can only speak for my company but a Rotorcraft Instrument Ticket is required.

 

Fly safe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus would a company who requires the rating but does not actually fly IFR care if if were fixed and not rotor?

 

A company that hires you to fly helicopters and stipulates an instrument rating as a condition of hire will expect it to be in a helicopter.

 

Rationale for requiring an instrument rating may trace to a number of reasons. The instrument rating lowers insurance rates. Instrument training shows a dedication to a higher standard of training. Single pilot IFR is some of the most demanding flying one can do. The rating acts as a discriminator among applicants. Instrument training is applicable to more than simply flying under IFR; it's applicable to low light or night, and conditions of reduced visibility or flight with minimal reference.

 

I did a lot of flying in smoke this summer, and while it wasn't conducted under IFR, it would have been very dangerous for someone without instrument training and experience.

 

When it comes to instrument training and the rating, cheapest isn't your best bet. Train to proficiency, not to the bare minimum to meet legal requirements. You're forming the basis for some important training that will be applicable in dust, smoke, snow, weather, clouds, night, etc. That training and the skills derived from it, or the lack of those skills, have made the difference in survival for many pilots over the years. Take it seriously.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A company that hires you to fly helicopters and stipulates an instrument rating as a condition of hire will expect it to be in a helicopter.

 

Rationale for requiring an instrument rating may trace to a number of reasons. The instrument rating lowers insurance rates. Instrument training shows a dedication to a higher standard of training. Single pilot IFR is some of the most demanding flying one can do. The rating acts as a discriminator among applicants. Instrument training is applicable to more than simply flying under IFR; it's applicable to low light or night, and conditions of reduced visibility or flight with minimal reference.

 

I did a lot of flying in smoke this summer, and while it wasn't conducted under IFR, it would have been very dangerous for someone without instrument training and experience.

 

When it comes to instrument training and the rating, cheapest isn't your best bet. Train to proficiency, not to the bare minimum to meet legal requirements. You're forming the basis for some important training that will be applicable in dust, smoke, snow, weather, clouds, night, etc. That training and the skills derived from it, or the lack of those skills, have made the difference in survival for many pilots over the years. Take it seriously.

Well said.

And yes you are correct they want it in a helicopter, not you practicing in a plane for most of your hours.

Cheaping out on training is going to come back later and bite you in the a..

Good training costs money, its a fact.

Not too far away from me is a horrible school.

It is the equivalent of a puppy mill, but for helicopter pilots. They apply for jobs regularly with me.

Maybe 1 in 100 from there seeem to have learned anything at that school....and even that 1% didn't learn much.

Yet there are many other schools applicants who apply and when we chat I get that the instructors had some experience themselves, and the school cared. They even learned how to fly in the mountains and the cost really is not much higher.

If you are already paying say 50k for bad training, isn't it a much better to spend 60k instead for exceptional training.

The best new applicants I see tend to come from a school with only 1 instructor. They already have a real grasp on what the realities of flying are in the industry. The ground school study even seems to be vastly better than the puppy mill schools.

An instrument rating is the same.

Get it....and get solidly trained by a true professional.

Us operators looking to hire are not all brain dead idiots who just assume a pass is good enough.

As a student take pride in yourself and do it right!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How-on-earth with today’s information explosion does anyone become a commercial helicopter pilot without completing the instrument? Aren’t schools incorporating the instrument training within the commercial PIC time-building phase?

 

It should be; Private to Instrument, to Commercial, to CFI, to CFII….. In that order. If not, you’re paying way too much…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spike that woukd be nice.

But the student earns a CPL-H.

Then later can do additional courses.

Night and IFR.

Advanced mountain.

And so on.

I wish the standards were raised substantially.

From 100 hours to at least 250. And it was mandatory to earn your IFR, and do extensive mountain training, line work, and flying in snow storms etc.

At least here in Canada where that is the normal flying.

But instead many schools teach only exactly what they know the flight exam test pilot will want....and so with a measly 100 hours of no real experience they pass the test and get given a license.

It is insanity!

At least a fixed wing pilot in Canada has to have 200 hours, and not just 100 like rotary commercial. And even 200 seems low in my opinion. Sadly I don't make the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just 100 hours? Well it takes 40 hours to get the instrument rating, throw in another 10 for night and you boys can join us at 150 hours to get the CPL-H.

 

Can you guys really find work at just 100 hours? 'Cause we can't do diddley until 200, and even then its only at the school that trained us!

 

...and why is night separate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spike that woukd be nice.

But the student earns a CPL-H.

Then later can do additional courses.

Night and IFR.

Advanced mountain.

And so on.

I wish the standards were raised substantially.

From 100 hours to at least 250. And it was mandatory to earn your IFR, and do extensive mountain training, line work, and flying in snow storms etc.

At least here in Canada where that is the normal flying.

But instead many schools teach only exactly what they know the flight exam test pilot will want....and so with a measly 100 hours of no real experience they pass the test and get given a license.

It is insanity!

At least a fixed wing pilot in Canada has to have 200 hours, and not just 100 like rotary commercial. And even 200 seems low in my opinion. Sadly I don't make the rules.

 

Roger that, and I appreciate the info. With that, I understood you are on the northern side of the border but I didn’t get that from the OP. Therefore, I assumed the OP was FAA certified, and as I’m sure you already know, the FAA doesn’t require such restrictive requirements. Specifically, after Private, you can get the IFR if you so desire. This can include night, mountains, Vref, Ag, whatever…. Commercial at 150 hours. Commercial certification is required for the CFI rating and the CFII. Therefore, from what the OP was asking, it would appear he is a commercial pilot with no instrument rating and if so, I’ll again ask, in today’s marketplace, how does that happen?

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Roger that, and I appreciate the info. With that, I understood you are on the northern side of the border but I didn’t get that from the OP. Therefore, I assumed the OP was FAA certified, and as I’m sure you already know, the FAA doesn’t require such restrictive requirements. Specifically, after Private, you can get the IFR if you so desire. This can include night, mountains, Vref, Ag, whatever…. Commercial at 150 hours. Commercial certification is required for the CFI rating and the CFII. Therefore, from what the OP was asking, it would appear he is a commercial pilot with no instrument rating and if so, I’ll again ask, in today’s marketplace, how does that happen?

 

The student not doing his homework prior to starting training and the school duping him.

 

The student not WANTING to do instrument, and instead going after his Commercial Cert first.

 

The student struggling with instrument, but then has enough hours that Commercial might seem like the way to go, so s/he switches gears.

 

 

Plenty of other reasons I'm sure. Of the ones I listed, the first one I know happens at one school in specific, the second is usually the student's choice (usually with the school advising against it), and the third I've not seen or heard of, but it wouldn't surprise me considering the mentality that some people have.

 

The other question you have to ask yourself is "who is paying for it?" Is it coming out of the student's pocket or is it someone else? Be it a loan, parent, or government agency...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to do with “listening”. That is, either listing to the wrong advice or, not listening to the right advice. To wit, just look at that 7 year old rekindled SSH thread. One guy warning others that SSH was a scam while a few others mocked him. Where are those folks now? Where is SSH now? People didn’t want to “listen” to the warnings, which by the way, were coming from experienced pro’s who had nothing to do with SSH. Why? The experienced pro’s had seen the warning signs before and wanted to warn the newbie students how this scam would eventually turn out……. In the end, lawsuits, no certificates, lost dreams simply because people didn’t listen……

 

In today’s helicopter industry, in order to be marketable as a, entry level pilot, and in the long term, you must have the instrument rating, the CFI and CFII. Don’t do this and you’ll more-than-likely remain outside the fence being just another fan of helicopters…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say I don't envy the entry level guys getting into this career. I did my private in 2002. I recall it being fairly straight forward. My CFI had been a student. He worked at the school about a year and moved on to tours. Students who were doing their CFI back filled his spot. About a year later, that CFI moved on along with the other CFIs who worked there.

Now-a-days we have schools churning Out CFI by the truck load which causes a bottle neck of people looking for their first job. Those who wait it out eventually move on but I'd be willing to bet most never go on to work as CFIs and end up disappearing into the regular work force of America with yet another useless college degree in aviation management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well just based on flight time pricing at a school I found with both. For a ppl in a C172 at $175/hr for 40 hours (I couldn't find any pricing for an add-on) its 7k. Then if you can do the ifr in the same aircraft that's another 7k for 40 hours, so 14k all together to become a private airplane pilot with instrument. They charge $525 for the R44, so at 40 hours that's 21k. All that would be left is a helicopter ifr add-on. If that took 20 hours in the R44 (again just a guess) that's $10,500, bringing the total to about 25k. Only 4k more to become dual rated than just a helicopter pilot with an R44 instrument!?

 

Maybe my numbers are just way off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do think that the hours required should be raised.

Why not?

Is training to the least hours and low standards somehow better than more hours and training to a higher level?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do think that the hours required should be raised.

Why not?

Is training to the least hours and low standards somehow better than more hours and training to a higher level?

I see what you are saying, but it sounds like you want the standards raised, not the hours.

 

Raising hours doesn't necessarily mean better pilots will be produced. There was someone on here not too long ago that was talking about how they fired someone with several thousand hours and replaced them with someone with less than 120. Therefore, clearly the number of hours (especially 50 or 100) doesn't mean that pilots will be better.

 

It's entirely possible to train a student to meet or exceed the standards in the pts within the minimum number of hours the FAA has set at this time. If they don't, then they need more training and shouldn't pass their checkride, or even get an endorsement from their instructor in the first place.

 

Do people get better with more experience? Of course they do, but where do you draw the line on when they have enough to safety operate a helicopter? 250, 500, 1000, 10,000? You can find many people at those hour levels that say they are still learning.

 

Operators set their minimums based on lots of different things. Hours are one of the reasons, so are insurance requirements, type of work, personal recommendations, how bad the operator needs someone, etc.

 

Flying can be the easy part of a job, it's the decision making, attitude, motivation, and integrity that make a good pilot. A few more hours in flight school can't change those factors. (Except maybe aeronautical decision making skills)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is training to the least hours and low standards somehow better than more hours and training to a higher level?

 

It is when you're paying for it!

 

"Advanced mountain training, line work, flying through snow storms"? You remind me of that boatpix guy who wants applicants to pay for training the company should be providing after they hire someone!

 

I know that over time I will become a better pilot. I don't need to buy 50 more hours to try and become one overnight!

Edited by eagle5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if not required for jobs, I'd get your instrument rating and ATP when possible.

 

I've flown 4000 hours in Kodiak Alaska and the weather is often special VFR and IFR. While we are a VFR operation and don't dispatch in true IFR conditions, being comfortable using your instruments will save your life and that of your passengers when the weather unexpectedily drops to IFR and below while you're over dense forest/ocean/mountains and cannot immediately land.

 

Knowing how to fly in IMC is a skill better learned at a flight school then polished in the work place!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, the influx of R44 IFR trainers into the training sector just to justify the extra $ for the school(s) is disturbing… Glad I did it when I did it and, at $0 cost to me, was the absolute right choice….

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever goofball

 

Mature and full of expertise. You justify a lower standard of training based on cost. It's a false argument, of course. Why not make it ten hours for the commercial, given the expense? Why not make it five?

 

Aren't you one that never paid for your training, but had it handed to you as a officer rising through the ranks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...