Commercial Cert in Turbine

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[Eggbeater]

I'm not sure why flying with him in a turbine would be any more helpful than flying with him in a smaller aircraft. Unless he doesn't instruct in an R-22/S-300, wouldn't you still have access to the same information and instruction?

[apiaguy]

knock yourself out...

short term... lots of money spent

mid term... good luck getting an instructing job

long term... your golden.. except your turbine experience is years old and you now need another go at it.

 

I really don't think it matters... but if you have the $$ I think that would be awesome. I have the money but still wouldn't spend it on the 206... it's just not what I'm going to be flying for the foreseeable future.

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[Eggbeater]

I'm actually flying all 4 right now (22,44,300,206), but I work with the other instructors on staff for the other craft, except when its time for some fine tuning, emergency procedures, or pre check ride tune ups.

 

That was my question; does he instruct in the R22/S300? Because if he does then you can still have access to all the same great information and instruction in a less expensive aircraft. It is also in your interest to get as much time in the R22 or S300 as you can to get comfortable and meet hiring minimums, unless you have a job offer for instructing in a 206.

 

Don't worry about the turbine time; it will come. Worry about getting that first job that will take you from 200 hours to 1500 hours, and I don't see the 206/turbine time helping you there. Maybe you could pay for some ground school from this instructor and you could still learn a lot.

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[deerock]

then why did you ask for opinions?

[Eggbeater]

 

It is my hope that taking my commercial check-ride in the Turbine, atop the hours spent working up to the check-ride, will display a level of proficiency that might allow me to overstep a pilot who has equivalent hours, but say "all" of them being in piston aircraft. But, nobody can really say.......until that day arrives. in the meantime, I"m enjoying the training tremendously, and its a nice break from all the instrument training boredom.

 

Highly unlikely, unless you have a factory course to show for it or substantial time in the 206. The problem is, this turbine time probably won't help you get a low time job unless you are in the right place at the right time. Even then, timing will probably play a larger role than your turbine time.

 

And if you are following the typical track of instructing till you get your 1500 hours, it probably won't even help you there either. If both you and another instructor apply for the same job and your turbine time is the difference between your two resumes, it might help a little. But I would wager that your individual attitudes and work ethics would play into who gets hired a lot more than 50 hours of turbine time. If you have the money, save it to buy food for when you become a flight instructor.

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[SBuzzkill]

My $0.02 is that if you can affort the 206 and you already have good time in what you will be instructing in why not do it? If his instruction is that valuable I think it will take you further than just learning the book and may possibly save your life at some point.

 

It's all about value. I think people get a little too wrapped up in what you're flying these days instead of being concerned about what you're learning.

[Airjunkie]

Good post buzzkill. I like that thinking.

[The Guardian]

What are you paying for 206 time vs. the R22/S300? Why not invest the difference in cost into more hours of flying? And I don't mean local flying around the pattern type hours. Plan and execute XC's and other adventures. Wouldn't the experience that you gain flying into new airspace and airports increase your confidence, abilities and marketability?

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[The Guardian]

Agreed, I had to look back thru my flight logs, and I actually never have done a flight that was just local flying around the pattern, though the nearest airport is 1 or 2 miles short of qualifying as XC for the purpose of logging. Here is a slightly longer than typical training flight, done in an R44.

 

http://connect.garmi...player/56269137

 

That flight we departed CRQ, and Flew to multiple airports, French Valley, Hemet, Banning, Redlands, THP, and then up to Big Bear before going down to Palm Springs Int.

Then we killed a few hours touring the PS Air Museum before flying back to CRQ so I could get some Night flight time.

So I have been spoiled by my Instructors, in that I have been conducting scenario based training from not-quite day 1.

 

Really cool flight and way to go on scenario-based training. How did you like flying into Big Bear? How did the R44 hold up? Assuming it was a Raven II. Also great idea on the Garmin watch as a flight log/GPS tracking device. Whatever you decide from what I hear you can't go wrong at Civiv.

Edited January 26, 2011 by The Guardian

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[Mikemv]

DS_HMMR, can you tell us what you have done to think you are using SBT?

 

Also, a good credential to have is having completed Bell School in the 206 for Insurance purposes.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Mike

[DS_HMMR]

0

Edited January 26, 2011 by DS_HMMR

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[The Guardian]

Here is an interesting article on SBT which I believe was written by Mikemv ... please correct me if I'm wrong...

 

http://www.justhelicopters.com/HELIARTICLES/tabid/433/ID/5199/Colorado-Heli-Ops-Scenario-Based-Training-A-New-Breed-of-Training.aspx

[DS_HMMR]

-

Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR

[Trans Lift]

I think he meant in your flight training!

[apiaguy]

hmmm... this kind of attitude is why I think SBT at the private level is crapola... the student has nothing to base their experience on and everything remains maneuver based. SBT at a post commercial level could be good experience to someone with very little practical experience in aviation... (which is what we seem to have with "career" students who walk off the street and in 2 years are CFI's)

I guess I figure every flight is SBT.

[Goldy]

While I am impressed and thank you for your service, I think Mike was only asking the question as it pertained to your flying and/or instruction.

 

Hope to make it down to see Richard's ship when she comes home. I was down at SD last month for some 206 play time myself. Didn't know the local 94th Aero Sqd was such a party house on a Saturday night!

[Rogue]

hmmm... this kind of attitude is why I think SBT at the private level is crapola... the student has nothing to base their experience on and everything remains maneuver based. SBT at a post commercial level could be good experience to someone with very little practical experience in aviation... (which is what we seem to have with "career" students who walk off the street and in 2 years are CFI's)

I guess I figure every flight is SBT.

 

Yea count me in that column.

 

How is doing MBT in slope operations NOT preparing you for actually landing on a slope ?

 

How is doing MBT in pinnacle approaches NOT preparing you for actually landing on a pinnacle ?

 

How is doing MBT in maximum performance take offs and constant angle departures NOT preparing you for confined areas ?

 

How is doing MBT in autorotations NOT preparing you for engine failure ?

 

I'm sure people will take this wrong like other things I've said. I have no ill will towards heli-ops or anyone but.... seriously.... why all the re-inventing of the wheel ?

 

I don't know the ins and outs of everyone's training routines but after I mastered the Maneuvers Based Training to satisfy my instructor I was then signed-off solo where I then applied those maneuvers to actual flights across country. We actually went out and did confined areas, pinnacles, etc, etc.

 

*shrug*

[Mikemv]

To All pilots and Helo CFI's, I respectfully want to clarify what SBT truly is.

 

I have found that a lot of knowledgable and sincere pilots/CFIs do not understand what the FITS/SBT/LCG methodology really is or how it is applied.

 

Many good and sincere CFI's think they use SBT. There is a misunderstanding of what SBT actually is and the elements that it encompasses. Most of the comments in the thread after my post indicate this lack of understanding.

 

Interjecting Scenarios into flight training is good but it is not SBT. The "B" in SBT stands for based and revolves around the FAA Industry Training Standards (FITS) concepts and methodologies. True SBT has three all encompassing elements, SBT-LCG-SRM. LCG is Learner Centered Grading, SRM is Single pilot Resource Management. LCG is the foundation for the developing of Higher Order Thinking Skills in "Pilots in Training"(PT's). This system starts with the very first flight. I might add that all CFI's can not relate to how to apply this and therefore argue that SBT does not work until after Commercial training. The entire methodology is brought out in my Fits Facilitator Training Program.

 

SBT-LCG-SRM programs are taught by CFI's that have become qualified as FITS SBT Facilitators. I have just completed the advanced training of the first 6 FITS Facilitators in the US. Flight Schools or CFI's can contact me for training at mikefranz@embarqmail.com

 

I will be making a presentation on SBT during the FIRC at Heli Expo in Orlando. For those of you attending Heli Expo, I would like to meet you and have coffee or a beer and discuss SBT methodologies further. The Industry is totally behind my efforts to improve the training of Helicopter Pilots and develop pilots with HOTS. Jim Palmer, HR Manager at Bristow asked me to send him all the pilots I could that have been trained in a FITS/SBT/LCG program!

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike Franz

FAASTeam Rep

239-269-5016 cell/text