takefootoff Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 NYC used to be/possibly still, a sector of the industry a pilot could get their first turbine job. Not really all that surprised by it, was expecting it to come eventually. ...could you imagine a 747 operator who required pilots with 747 experience!?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avbug Posted April 7, 2018 Report Share Posted April 7, 2018 (edited) NYC used to be/possibly still, a sector of the industry a pilot could get their first turbine job. Not really all that surprised by it, was expecting it to come eventually. ...could you imagine a 747 operator who required pilots with 747 experience!?! I can imagine a less stupid argument. Yours is non-sequitur. My new-hire class in the 747 had no pilots with previous 747 experience (except as noted below). Everyone, save two, had turbine experience however, and everyone (save two) had extensive PIC turbine experience in comparable operations, aircraft, etc, and everyone had multiple type ratings. Nobody was awarded a class date with nothing but piston time behind them. It's common today for many operators to seek pilots with turbine experience, and there are a LOT of jobs out there that require turbine experience. You're attempting to confuse the issue by alluding to a large, four engine turbine airplane, when the thread is about a turbine job that requires turbine experience. Apples and oranges. In that 747 class, incidentally, we had two flight engineers who were attempting to upgrade out of the FE seat. They had no turbine experience as pilots; each had low-time commercial experience as instructors in piston fixed wing aircraft, and fifteen or so years of experience as flight engineer on the 747. Neither made it. They came back and tried again later, after paying for some expensive 747 sim time to prep, but neither made it and were relegated to permanent FE seats. Both subsequently left the company several years later and found work in regional airlines. It was very unrealistic to make that leap, given their backgrounds. It's not the piston time, in that case, but the large airplane experience, and the instrument experience. The 747 is not a difficult aircraft to fly if you have the background and experience to transition to the airplane; it's well thought out, and more like a big 172 than anything. It's all about energy management, and it has a lot more going on in the cockpit than most aircraft. The Classic 747 (-100, -200) had over 1000 lights, gages, indications, alerts, alarms, warnings, etc, in the cockpit. It could be a busy place, especially in an emergency, and even the normal operation was not particularly automated, and required all three crew members. It shouldn't come as much surprise that operators required adequate experience to manage the airplane. Likewise, it shouldn't come as much surprise that an operator seeks pilots with turbine experience for a turbine helicopter. The operator is paying the cost of insuring those pilots; pilots with experience are easier to insure. Edited April 7, 2018 by avbug 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hand_Grenade_Pilot Posted April 7, 2018 Report Share Posted April 7, 2018 Can we talk about this latest trend; 'needing turbine time...to get turbine time' Has anyone else noticed this?Its really just a matter of supply and demand. If a company has a selection of exceptional, qualified pilots there is no reason to lower experience requirements. A common theme in this industry is taking a step back to take a leap forward; working for an undesirable company (lower pay, bad location, etc) to get qualified and then take that leap forward to better opportunities. For turbine time, that could mean working for a small outfit flying something like an R66. If you have local knowledge and flying experience, sometimes companies will waive the turbine requirement. While starting/flying/shutting down a turbine helicopter is a fairly easy task, there are some important nuances. For example, having an ear for a weak battery (igniter cycling slowly). Or being able to immediately (and delicately) reduce fuel if a modulated start is going too hot, versus cutting off fuel completely if a non-modulated start goes hot. An aircraft like the early model AS350s have an unusual fuel control design, and requires some finesse to start perfectly. There is no time to think about an unusual turbine start; you must be able to react immediately, which comes from practice and experience. In flight, it is important to understand the quirks of a turbine engine. For instance, you notice that TOT is +30C from when you started cruise, but DA is the same. Is it a problem? Maybe. It could be as simple as your inlet filter being saturated with moisture from flying through precipitation. Maybe you forgot to turn off part of your bleed air system. Or it could be more severe. If you develop an engine oil leak, your TQ gauge will be reading low. If you fail to notice to lower than usual oil pressure and keep maintaining the same TQ on the gauge, you would be inadvertently increasing power, hence the higher TOT (and NG readings). From a practical standpoint, most of the problems with turbine engines stem from the pilot improperly managing the start-up (allowing a hot start to occur). This can leave the operator/owner of the aircraft with a huge bill. It can pay off (literally) to hire a pilot who can manage a turbine engine as second nature, so the requirement is understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred0311 Posted April 7, 2018 Report Share Posted April 7, 2018 (edited) Myabe they're hoping to pick up the Liberty/FlyNYON guys... Edited April 7, 2018 by Fred0311 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avbug Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 Its really just a matter of supply and demand. If a company has a selection of exceptional, qualified pilots there is no reason to lower experience requirements. Bingo. The regional airline world is making big adjustments right now, due to issues of supply and demand. Previously a sub-poverty paying job, new hires are starting about 70,000 in some cases. When a glut of 250 hour pilots was available, they were taking anyone and paying 16,000. Now the flow has been restricted to only those with ATP experience or qualifications, fewer are available, fewer are going, and fewer are willing to work for such low wages; they pay more and get a bit more experience. For an operator that can hire at a certain experience level, there's no reason to lower those standards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.