Jump to content

Will it really take 55-60 hrs to get my Private add-on?


Recommended Posts

why as a private rated helicopter pilot may a pilot act as pilot in command of any helicopter in the world that does not require a type rating

 

You need a type rating for EVERY aircraft in JAA land!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o I have a mission. I need to fly 500 pounds of cargo and 195 pound passenger to a remote mountain top camp site. I have the choice between a Robinson R-22 and a Bell 206. After I identifying the needs of the operation and the risks involved tell me how deciding which aircraft make and model has nothing to do with the decision making process.

 

shall I go on ?

 

and as far authority goes I'll put his 40 + years, 20k plus hours of experience, A&P license and position as a hiring authority against whatver you bring to the table.

 

I've been reading some of the comments, and two posters in particular seem to be locked in a bit of a tug of war. Both have good points, and in their own reasoning, both are correct. A few thoughts, however, are in order.

 

It's very true that far more training today is conductedin R22's than other types of aircraft, in the civil arena. Without a doubt, one who doesn't have R22 time is handicapping himself or herself by limiting options, especially at entry level jobs.

 

Everyone is familiar with Frank Robinson's position, but also very familiar with the fact that the majority of Robinson's sales and revenue is to primary flight training. Go figure.

 

Aeronautical Decision Making is an overused (and abused term), but in the final analysis, it comes down to making the right call. There are a lot of terms in the industry; it was formerly CRM in multiple phases (and a dozen other things), but the bottom line is that it involves making good choices. The decision to limit weight in a given aircraft when faced with high density altitude is one such example. Choosing one aircraft over another is also an example. Good decision making skills take place long before one ever leave the ground or turns a propeller or rotor or accepts a tow. It's all about making good choices.

 

The comment that not choosing to train in a Robinson shows good judgment sounds very much like it came from someone with no Robinson experience, and one could almost bet dollars for doughnuts that it was the comment of a military pilot. Someone with no background training in or using that product is far more likely to be biased. I've met individuals in the fixed wing world who couldn't imagine flying a piston powered airplane; especially a single engine one. I've met some who couldn't seem to manage it, and it's a very simple process. For someone to suggest that choosing to train in a Robinson shows poor decision making skills is not an informed nor intelligent comment; it's got to be either tongue in cheek, or a very arrogant position.

 

That one has a mechanic certificate doesn't really say much about his ability to make calls regarding ADM or CRM topics. One could simply say he's a very experienced pilot, and the person doing the hiring and leave it at that...bolstering his stature by adding the "A&P" is throwing in irrelevant material that clouds the issue. I have five different FAA certificates myself (including the A&P), but being a mechanic doesn't help me choose this aircraft or that to show judgement.

 

That said, I do tend to evaluate aircraft more closely than some based on their mechanical soundness and condition. The Robinson design isn't inherently poor and it's not mechanically unsound. The only way having a maintenance background should influence one's view of the Robinson as a trainer should be when considering a specific aircraft (eg, serial number or N number) and it's present condition. To suggest that because a student trained in Robinsons, the student showed poor judgement is a ridiculous assertion, but even more so when qualifying that decision as coming from a mechanic.

 

Certainly if one could train in aircraft with more rotor inertia, more stability, more power, and more capability, there's a lot to be said for doing so. However, one should remember that the goal is the training evironment, not the work environment. In my experience as an instructor, I prefer to see training equipment that makes the student work. Having equipment that's too stable or too easy is counterproductive. This isn't to say that other platforms are "easy," but there's a lot to be said for the common wisdom that the student who can fly the Robinson well (especially at higher density altitudes) can usually transition to other aircraft quite easily.

 

Simply because a student chooses to train in an R22 doesn't mean that he or she will value it above a 206 or 500 for a work assignment. Apples to bananas.

 

If everyone could afford to train in a 206, that would be great, but it's not realistic. Nor is it necessarily productive. Learning to conserve limited rotor inertia and low power makes transition to an aircraft with a lot of inertia much easier. Having a limited platform places the burden on the student; the aircraft doesn't have the capability of saving the student from himself. The student needs to learn to do it right. It's in recognition of these limitations that the SFAR exists, but it's also these same limitations that may mean the student takes longer, and ends up the better for it at the end.

 

I'm glad that one student was able to find an employer who liked his choice, and who had good equipment for him to fly. If everyone could walk into a deal like that, one would have a lot of happy campers. However, most students seeking their first job will be instructing, and they'll be doing it in a Robinson. Is this a bad thing? No. Is it ideal? No. Is it the status quo and the state of the industry? Yes. Does this reflect badly on the students as they transition to becoming instructors? No.

 

A student who has trained on equipment other than a Robinson can't simply get a checkout in a Robinson and go to work. Minimum mandatory training and flight times apply. Conversely, a student trained in an R22 can transition to other platforms without much drama. There is a lot to be said for training in the R22. The hardest part of learning to fly is paying for it. The R22 represents the most cost effective (least expensive) option in most all cases. What one spends counts. A lot.

 

When it comes to the overall cost for initial certification, one may be able to get through more quickly in something other than a Robinson, or one may not. However, if one intends to go to work for a living, one is going to need experience and additional flight hours. These hours are going to need to be flown regardless of the platform. If one intends to target the largest prospective employer base, then the Robinson offers more choices or possibilities, although one should always seek training at a school that can offer future employment if possible (and a lot of schools prefer to hire their own graduates).

 

A few years down the line, the discussion becomes pointless, after one has moved beyond the initial flight training. I guarantee that today at this point in my career, nobody cares what primary trainer I used. I care, looking back, but as much from a nostalgic point of view as a practical one. I will say that the aircraft in which I learned to fly was NOT the aircraft in which I got my initial flight training. Learning to fly came later. If the meaning of that statement isn't immediately clear, then one is at a point too early in one's career to understand; most likely one is at a point where the issue of Robinson vs. something else is a big deal. It's not.

 

Fly in what you an afford, where you can afford it, and make the most out of your training, while you can, before the prices go up again, and before the economy takes another down turn. Again the hardest part of learning to fly is paying for it. If you intend to go to work flying, then do everything you can to open the largest job market up to you. If you have a job waiting, good for you, but that's not the case for most.

 

Finally, for those who think they've got all the answers pegged, I've been flying for nearly three decades now, and have a wallet full of FAA certification, type ratings, and authorizations, and frankly, I certainly don't have all the answers. If you're not learning something all the time and open to doing so, you're probably in great danger of death or hurting someone.

 

When the power quits on the Robinson, what are you going to do? Lower the collective? What about other equipment? The same? There you go. The amount of inertial and your timing may vary a little, but the end result is the same. Sometimes you go over the mountain, sometimes you go around. Sometimes you decide not to go at all, and sometimes you just go back to bed. Decision making isn't wrong if two different choices are found, if either can be done safely. There's seldom just one correct answer. Don't knock the Robinson pilot for choosing the Robinson, and don't knock anyone else for choosing their equipment. Don't knock the military aviator for his or her good instruction and training, and don't knock the civil pilot who didn't get the coveted military flying slot. There are different paths to the same end, and when you reach that end, you'll find that the paths converge. Don't lose too much sleep over the path on which you presently travel, as you'll get there soon enough and find out there really was never as much difference as you once thought.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know you had a point with what you said but for some reason instead of arguing the facts you basically attacked a very dear personal friend of mine.

 

If you don't believe selection of an airframe has anything to do with the decision making process at many different levels then you seriously need some remedial training number one. Number two I see you blatantly ignore directly answering my question - again avoiding arguing the facts of the matter and choosing to make personal insults because you have no facts to back your weak argument.

 

I see you have no problem with seeing how an R22 cannot complete the same mission as a Bell 206, the gross difference was exageratted to emphasize the point- I was pretty sure I would need to exageratte it to that level for you to be able to see the difference. So you agree it would be a bad decision making process to try and use a R22 to complete that mission. Congratulations you have graduated from step one of remedial training.

 

Ok, I guess I came on a little strong about your "very dear friend" at the start. I personally prefer this site to the dark side(JH), mainly because the relative douchebaggery is kept to a minimum here between us, as we treat each other in a more professional manner. I use my real name on all internet sites I post on, because it's a matter of pride with me that anything I say on here is not something I wouldn't say to you face to face. I believe it makes for more rational discussions.

 

But, I also deal with real world scenarios and that is not a realistic real world scenario to me. I don't know of any commercial operators that give their pilots a choice of airframe as they're giving them their missions. That's not to say that, some small operator somewhere doesn't do that for their pilot(s). There may be one or 2 of those operators floating around, I just have never come across it. Operators use the cheapest possible method to get the job done within their legal parameters. A pilots preference for an airframe does not factor into that business decision.

 

So I will repost what I said earlier so as not to get any further into what I believe to be an asinine use of ADM.

 

ADM was clearly not designed to compare airframes. Let's not tarnish a great piloting tool by applying it to asinine "which is the better trainer" arguments.

 

So you admit, it is inherently unstable and has low rotor inertia not exactly good qualities to have in a primary trainer.

 

I agree with you here. I always maintained the R22 is not a good trainer. And having personally made the transition into Bell and Eurocopter products from Robbies, I find it very difficult to see any merit to the argument that they make "better pilots". I have a real distaste for that term, "if you can fly a R22, you can fly anything".

 

But we do live in the real world where Robbies are the cheapest and most efficient way to enter the civilian industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any commercial operators that give their pilots a choice of airframe as they're giving them their missions. That's not to say that, some small operator somewhere doesn't do that for their pilot(s). There may be one or 2 of those operators floating around, I just have never come across it. Operators use the cheapest possible method to get the job done within their legal parameters. A pilots preference for an airframe does not factor into that business decision.

 

I've worked for more than a few commercial operations during the course of my career, and the issue of whether an aircraft is appropriate for a particular operation or not is ALWAYS a critical part of the decision making on any flight. I've had numerous occasions when I've asserted that I won't take this airframe, but I will take that one, despite objections from management. I've had numerous occasions to refuse a flight, make recommendations (or put my foot down) as to how a flight would be conducted, or when or where, or to decide which equipment goes where.

 

The pilot in command is the final authority regarding the conduct of the flight. You may have spent your career thus far thinking that the employer tells you what to do and you've no choice but to do it, but the "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir" mentality will get you killed. Making a choice of equipment for a particular mission is a critical choice, as is assessing whether the assigned equipment is up to the job.

 

The issue of whether the R22 is up to the job of flight training or not is pointless; it's the most successful training helicopter out there, and used by more operators for training than any other. However, if a student doesn't feel comfortable in the Robinson, then the student shouldn't hesitate to refuse to train in one. There are other options. Because one student doesn't decide to train in one, and another does, doesn't make either one wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pilot in command is the final authority regarding the conduct of the flight. You may have spent your career thus far thinking that the employer tells you what to do and you've no choice but to do it, but the "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir" mentality will get you killed. Making a choice of equipment for a particular mission is a critical choice, as is assessing whether the assigned equipment is up to the job.

 

One of the factors that I weigh when choosing an employer is whether or not they have a proper operations department that know enough about the aircraft that I'm assigned to so that they can make that determination about the capability of the machine before the flight request even reaches me. On the off chance that I do get a flight that I'm uncomfortable with, I've never had a problem telling ops or the customer that the flight will be done in 2 runs or by an other aircraft that I'm not assigned to.

 

The small operators that I've worked for in the past had one type of airframe so we could either do the job or not do the job. I have had operators try to have me push the capabilities of my aircraft, and I have told them NO even with their indirect threats of termination. I've found that with the smaller operators contracts are too personal to them for my liking. I stay away from smaller operators now partially for that reason. I do get that some people prefer smaller operators though for a variety of other reasons.

 

Man this thread has creeped!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man this thread has creeped!!

 

Indeed it has ;) It has been an interesting and educational discussion, nonetheless.

 

Back to my original question, can anyone provide any advice about gauging whether or not a particular school is suggesting a training period that is too much buck for the bang? Even though I've utilized numerous instructors at a number of different flight schools throughout my fixed wing training career, I've never really found myself in the position of questioning whether or not a school is trying to take advantage of my wallet until now. Perhaps because the higher price tag of helicopter training has made me hypervigilant to the potential for being ripped off.

 

So far what I gather is that I will need X amount of time to become employable as an instructor per the Robinson SFAR anyway, so whether or not it takes 55-60 hrs for a private add-on is moot (where I live, S300 and other training platforms are not options). Am I warm?

 

 

EDIT: this leads me to another question: I am about half way through my commercial aernautical requirements for fixed wing, and I am also instrument rated. Would it make more sense to complete my commercial certificate on a fixed wing platform before transitioning to helicopters? At this point I'd like to focus as much of my prospective career on helicopters as possible, but I also want to do it in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, and in a manner that will utilmately give me as much employment opportinity as possible.

 

Thanks to all for the input and discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...So far what I gather from what has been posted above is that I will need X amount of time to become employable per the Robinson SFAR anyway, so whether or not it takes 55-60 hrs for a private add-on is irrelevant (where I live, S300 and other training platforms are not options). Am I warm?

 

You will need 50hrs in an R22 if you want to teach in one, and if you don't have access to "other platforms" (and you don't want to move for Bristow) then I guess your original question is rather moot. However, considering your experience, you should at least be able to solo at 20hrs, any more than that, and I would question the school?

 

As for your Commercial, as said before (somewhere up there) if you want to work in helicopters,...train in helicopters (unless someday you think you'll want to use that Commercial fixed?).

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it has ;) It has been an interesting and educational discussion, nonetheless.

 

Back to my original question, can anyone provide any advice about gauging whether or not a particular school is suggesting a training period that is too much buck for the bang? Even though I've utilized numerous instructors at a number of different flight schools throughout my fixed wing training career, I've never really found myself in the position of questioning whether or not a school is trying to take advantage of my wallet until now. Perhaps because the higher price tag of helicopter training has made me hypervigilant to the potential for being ripped off.

 

 

 

So far what I gather is that I will need X amount of time to become employable as an instructor per the Robinson SFAR anyway, so whether or not it takes 55-60 hrs for a private add-on is moot (where I live, S300 and other training platforms are not options). Am I warm?

 

Yeah, you're pretty warm. You're gonna need a minimum of 200 hours helicopter to instruct in a robbie, at least 50 of those have to be in a Robinson, and at least 25 in a R22 to instruct in the R22. If you go with the S300 or some other model you'll need a commercial plus however many hours it takes to get the CFI(5-10 hours I think should do it).

 

EDIT: this leads me to another question: I am about half way through my commercial aernautical requirements for fixed wing, and I am also instrument rated. Would it make more sense to complete my commercial certificate on a fixed wing platform before transitioning to helicopters? At this point I'd like to focus as much of my prospective career on helicopters as possible, but I also want to do it in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, and in a manner that will utilmately give me as much employment opportinity as possible.

 

Thanks to all for the input and discussion.

 

As you're already half way through it, what you could do is finish your FW Commercial and then do a Helicopter Commercial add-on in about 50-60 hours. Then bust out the CFI in the helicopter and you're good to instruct in everything but a Robbie.

 

The FW Commercial may be useful if you ever want to work in a Corporate aviation department where they'll train you up in their jet as you're already there rather than hire another pilot. I've had a few friends do this and it worked out pretty well for them. But, other than that there are not many other applications for it in the helicopter world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at this point if you do the numbers, it may be easier on the pocket to finish the FW ratings and take your chances without Robbie time as you enter the helicopter world.

 

But if you want to instruct in the Robbie it would probably be cheaper to drop the FW now and start building towards those 200 hours.

 

It's a tough decision. Or if you have lots of cash bust out the R22 time and the FW time. You'll be pretty competitive then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at this point if you do the numbers, it may be easier on the pocket to finish the FW ratings and take your chances without Robbie time as you enter the helicopter world.

 

But if you want to instruct in the Robbie it would probably be cheaper to drop the FW now and start building towards those 200 hours.

 

It's a tough decision. Or if you have lots of cash bust out the R22 time and the FW time. You'll be pretty competitive then!

 

"(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 unless that person: (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22; or....

 

 

(2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-44 unless that person-- (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward the 50 hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; or...."

 

 

....Based on the regulations, my plan is to start my heli training and obtain my private rating in the R-22 and R-44, then work towards commercial and CFI ratings and work towards that 200H total in different aircraft: S300 and a H500 I have access to. By that logic I now have flight experience in four different aircraft and have fulfilled my SFAR requirements to teach in a Robbie. If my math is correct - you need 75 hours total IN ROBBIES (50H R-22 and 25H R-44) in order to meet SFAR reqs - obviously my private should be completed well before 75 hours but the remaining time can still be shared among other machines while working towards CFI....

 

Crazy? Seems pretty simple to me but, then again, I'm the new guy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 unless that person: (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22; or....

 

 

(2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-44 unless that person-- (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward the 50 hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; or...."

 

 

....Based on the regulations, my plan is to start my heli training and obtain my private rating in the R-22 and R-44, then work towards commercial and CFI ratings and work towards that 200H total in different aircraft: S300 and a H500 I have access to.

 

Crazy? Seems pretty simple to me but, then again, I'm the new guy....

 

How do you figure a student gets thier solo time for thier PPL? Are you trying to say the minimum time for a PPL in a Robbie is now 200 hrs?

 

I think perhaps your numbers or terminoligy is slightly off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you figure a student gets thier solo time for thier PPL? Are you trying to say the minimum time for a PPL in a Robbie is now 200 hrs?

 

I think perhaps your numbers or terminoligy is slightly off.

 

I made some edits above....and I'm not trying to teach here because I may very well be mistaken - it's just how I understand it by my own reading of the SFAR.

 

200 hours total, of which only 75 hours needs to be in Robbies?

 

 

"(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 unless that person:


  • (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22; or
    (ii) Has had at least 10 hours dual instruction in the Robinson R-22 and has received an endorsement from a certified flight instructor authorized under paragraph (B)(5) of this section that the individual has been given the training required by this paragraph and is proficient to act as pilot in command of an R-22. Beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the endorsement, the individual may not act as pilot in command unless the individual has completed a flight review in an R-22 within the preceding 12 calendar months and obtained an endorsement for that flight review. The dual instruction must include at least the following abnormal and emergency procedures flight training:


    • (a) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures,
      (B) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor,
      © Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery, and
      (D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.

(2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-44 unless that person--


  • (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward the 50 hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; or
    (ii) Has had at least 10 hours dual instruction in a Robinson helicopter, at least 5 hours of which must have been accomplished in the Robinson R-44 helicopter and has received an endorsement from a certified flight instructor authorized under paragraph (B)(5) of this section that the individual has been given the training required by this paragraph and is proficient to act as pilot in command of an R-44. Beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the endorsement, the individual may not act as pilot in command unless the individual has completed a flight review in a Robinson R-44 within the preceding 12 calendar months and obtained an endorsement for that flight review. The dual instruction must include at least the following abnormal and emergency procedures flight training--


    • (A) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures;
      (B) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor;
      © Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery; and
      (D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FW Commercial may be useful if you ever want to work in a Corporate aviation department where they'll train you up in their jet as you're already there rather than hire another pilot.

 

A few hours of fixed wing won't do much for getting a corporate job. A twenty five hundred hour rotor pilot with one hour of fixed wing is a one hour fixed wing pilot, and that's how most employers will view you.

 

Most corporate jobs will want to see at least about 2,500 hours of fixed wing time, a type rating, and solid actual instrument experience and skills. They will typically want 1,000 to 2,000 hours of fixed wing pilot in command experience, and most operators will not consider rotor time.

 

Put the shoe on the other foot; a twenty five thousand hour fixed wing pilot with one hour in a helicopter is a one hour pilot when it comes to helicopters.

 

There are rare exceptions where someone flying a helicopter for a flight department that has both fixed wing and rotor might be considered for a first officer/copilot position in the corporate aircraft, but such positions are very rare, as are the insurance policies that will cover such a person. Further, to gain enough experience in the corporate aircraft would be very slow, and arduous.

 

Most corporate flight departments tend to be very particular about who they hire to fly. Not only are the aircraft exceedingly expensive, but so is the training, and the clients tend to be financially worth more each than an entire airliner of us common folk. Additionally, requirements exist regarding one's experience and background, when completing type ratings in the simulator, where virtually all corporate training is done today. Without adequate fixed wing experience, obtaining a type rating without meeting the experience requirements relative to a given class of simulator, one is out of luck, or stuck doing the training and type rating in the actual aircraft. No flight department wants to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to Corporate Flight Departments in the Northeast it's just a matter of having the right contacts and being in the area for a while to become known. Like most jobs in this industry, it's not so much about what you know, but who you know. You're right about needing at least 2,500 hours. But like I said, I know plenty of guys who ended up flying jets after they got hired to fly a helicopter for the company.

 

A good example is one guy who was hired to fly a helicopter and found himself at Flight Safety 6 months later for the Falcon Jet. There was never any mention of jets when he started but when a position opened they asked him if he wanted it along with a $30K bump. He had a private FW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to Corporate Flight Departments in the Northeast it's just a matter of having the right contacts and being in the area for a while to become known. Like most jobs in this industry, it's not so much about what you know, but who you know. You're right about needing at least 2,500 hours. But like I said, I know plenty of guys who ended up flying jets after they got hired to fly a helicopter for the company.

 

A good example is one guy who was hired to fly a helicopter and found himself at Flight Safety 6 months later for the Falcon Jet. There was never any mention of jets when he started but when a position opened they asked him if he wanted it along with a $30K bump. He had a private FW.

That's kinda what I figured. It's the same thing everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those words were taken from the mouth of Frank Robinson himself, thank you.

 

So you admit, it is inherently unstable and has low rotor inertia not exactly good qualities to have in a primary trainer.

 

 

And it’s going to creep some more….

 

Yet again, I had to go back and re-read what I wrote to see why some panties got ruffled. And again… no wait…. I’m gonna go back and re-read it for a fifth time……..

 

Nope! I said “it produces relatively good pilots”. Nowhere did I say, NOR did I imply the R22 produces better pilots or the best pilots. Furthermore, the word “relatively” has a meaning and if you don’t know what it means, especially in this context, then I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t spin my posts so they are misinterpreted. And, the “if you can fly a R22 you can fly anything” quote is as old as dirt. Nevertheless, the fact remains, transitioning from a R22 to a TH55, Brantley, 206, Huey, Skycrane, Space Shuttle or whatever, is far easier than transitioning from any other machine into a R22. This is not my opinion, it’s a fact. If anyone who has transitioned from any other aircraft into an R22 and has found this not to be true, then god bless ya because you are a super-pilot and deserve brass bars, epaulets with a hundred stripes and a cookie…..

 

While this thread has definitely gone bad, its clear opinions vary. How far? I’d like to see Bell start reproducing the 206 with a four bladed rotor system and a better tail rotor. I’d also like to see all Astars retrofitted with m/r gear-box driven hydraulic pumps and enhanced crashworthiness standards. What about the 500 going back to the 4 bladed main rotor system and the “V” horizontal stabilizer? I’d like to see all training conducted in turbines so the cost of initial training quadruples. I’d like to be paid more and pay fewer taxes. I’d also like to see dogs and cats live in harmony. But alas, these things aren’t going to happen just because I believe they should… Just like my statement “Doesn’t matter what anyone believes the R22 was manufactured for.” Just for clarification, Frank didn’t say that. I did. Why? Because, I understand it doesn’t matter what I think and, the R22 remains to be the most popular training helicopter -ever. If anyone wants to believe differently, then so be it… It-is-what-it-is…

 

Lastly if anyone is afraid to fly an R22 or believes they are so dangerous that only high time super-pilots should fly them, or dislike Frank Robinson so much because he’s rich and famous or because he wears the same suit every day, then simply don’t fly a R22, R44 or R66….. I’m no fan of Robinson products, but they provide the opportunity for low-time pilots to build time cheaply in order to advance in this business, regardless of what anyone believes about their inherent idiosyncrasies ……

Edited by Spike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to Corporate Flight Departments in the Northeast it's just a matter of having the right contacts and being in the area for a while to become known. Like most jobs in this industry, it's not so much about what you know, but who you know. You're right about needing at least 2,500 hours. But like I said, I know plenty of guys who ended up flying jets after they got hired to fly a helicopter for the company.

 

A good example is one guy who was hired to fly a helicopter and found himself at Flight Safety 6 months later for the Falcon Jet. There was never any mention of jets when he started but when a position opened they asked him if he wanted it along with a $30K bump. He had a private FW.

 

I don't know how much fixed wing corporate jet experience you have or how many fixed wing turbojet type ratings you hold, but in my experience such things as private pilots flying for a corporate flight department are very, very rare, and it doesn't happen with reputable departments. Further, where it does happen in rare, rare circumstances, it's with a company that's looking for a warm body to fill the seat because they're too cheap to hire a real pilot. When I say "real pilot," I mean a qualified employee with real experience, not a one hour wonder that the company could jam through a type rating course at flight safety or a quickly program at simcom.

 

Such jobs tend to not last, either.

 

250 hours of fixed wing doesn't count for much of anything. Neither does a thousand or two. Unlike helicopters, where one can go get a turbine PIC job with a thousand hours or so, one won't find such opportunities in the fixed wing world. Two fifty...plan on flying traffic in a Cessna 172, or instructing for a long, long time.

 

In the long run, however, you'll find helicopter salaries fairly capped out, whereas fixed wing the long term money will be much better, as a rule.

 

That's kinda what I figured. It's the same thing everywhere.

 

Everywhere, where? I don't see it domestically or internationally. I don't see it in the Northeast US, Southeast US, the deep south, north, midwest, or the west coast, either. Few corporate departments have opportunities for dual rated pilots, few utilize both helicopters and fixed wing. Most departments look hard for experience, and are loathe to pick up an inexperienced pilot, let alone a private pilot (who can't work for compensation or hire).

Edited by avbug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made some edits above....and I'm not trying to teach here because I may very well be mistaken - it's just how I understand it by my own reading of the SFAR.

 

200 hours total, of which only 75 hours needs to be in Robbies?

 

 

"(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 unless that person:

B)


  • (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22; or
    (ii) Has had at least 10 hours dual instruction in the Robinson R-22 and has received an endorsement from a certified flight instructor authorized under paragraph ((5) of this section that the individual has been given the training required by this paragraph and is proficient to act as pilot in command of an R-22. Beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the endorsement, the individual may not act as pilot in command unless the individual has completed a flight review in an R-22 within the preceding 12 calendar months and obtained an endorsement for that flight review. The dual instruction must include at least the following abnormal and emergency procedures flight training:
  • B)

    • (a) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures,
      ( Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor,
      © Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery, and
      (D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.

(2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-44 unless that person-- B)


  • (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward the 50 hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; or
    (ii) Has had at least 10 hours dual instruction in a Robinson helicopter, at least 5 hours of which must have been accomplished in the Robinson R-44 helicopter and has received an endorsement from a certified flight instructor authorized under paragraph ((5) of this section that the individual has been given the training required by this paragraph and is proficient to act as pilot in command of an R-44. Beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the endorsement, the individual may not act as pilot in command unless the individual has completed a flight review in a Robinson R-44 within the preceding 12 calendar months and obtained an endorsement for that flight review. The dual instruction must include at least the following abnormal and emergency procedures flight training--
  • B)

    • (A) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures;
      ( Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor;
      © Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery; and
      (D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures."

 

The way I read it, which also may be wrong... You must have at least 10hrs and an endorsment from a qualified flight instructor which says you are competent enough to perform the outlined manuvers proficiently.

 

The point I was trying to make is, PPL students solo way before 200 hrs, if they don't, they probably shouldn't fly period. If you are on a solo flight (only body on the ACFT) how can anyone else be considdered the PIC?

 

I admit, I may have gotten distracted by all the smiley's throughout the SFAR though and totally mis-read it.

Edited by gary-mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The way I read it, which also may be wrong... You must have at least 10hrs and an endorsment from a qualified flight instructor which says you are competent enough to perform the outlined manuvers proficiently.

 

The point I was trying to make is, PPL students solo way before 200 hrs, if they don't, they probably shouldn't fly period. If you are on a solo flight (only body on the ACFT) how can anyone else be considdered the PIC?

 

 

...that's where I get confused as well...maybe someone can clear that up?

 

Again my flawed understanding thinks that as long as you are being instructed...even when you're flying solo, it's a type of exception? I dunno....hopefully someone can explain this in lamen terms for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it’s going to creep some more….

 

Yet again, I had to go back and re-read what I wrote to see why some panties got ruffled. And again… no wait…. I’m gonna go back and re-read it for a fifth time……..

 

Nope! I said “it produces relatively good pilots”. Nowhere did I say, NOR did I imply the R22 produces better pilots or the best pilots. Furthermore, the word “relatively” has a meaning and if you don’t know what it means, especially in this context, then I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t spin my posts so they are misinterpreted. And, the “if you can fly a R22 you can fly anything” quote is as old as dirt. Nevertheless, the fact remains, transitioning from a R22 to a TH55, Brantley, 206, Huey, Skycrane, Space Shuttle or whatever, is far easier than transitioning from any other machine into a R22. This is not my opinion, it’s a fact. If anyone who has transitioned from any other aircraft into an R22 and has found this not to be true, then god bless ya because you are a super-pilot and deserve brass bars, epaulets with a hundred stripes and a cookie…..

 

While this thread has definitely gone bad, its clear opinions vary. How far? I’d like to see Bell start reproducing the 206 with a four bladed rotor system and a better tail rotor. I’d also like to see all Astars retrofitted with m/r gear-box driven hydraulic pumps and enhanced crashworthiness standards. What about the 500 going back to the 4 bladed main rotor system and the “V” horizontal stabilizer? I’d like to see all training conducted in turbines so the cost of initial training quadruples. I’d like to be paid more and pay fewer taxes. I’d also like to see dogs and cats live in harmony. But alas, these things aren’t going to happen just because I believe they should… Just like my statement “Doesn’t matter what anyone believes the R22 was manufactured for.” Just for clarification, Frank didn’t say that. I did. Why? Because, I understand it doesn’t matter what I think and, the R22 remains to be the most popular training helicopter -ever. If anyone wants to believe differently, then so be it… It-is-what-it-is…

 

Lastly if anyone is afraid to fly an R22 or believes they are so dangerous that only high time super-pilots should fly them, or dislike Frank Robinson so much because he’s rich and famous or because he wears the same suit every day, then simply don’t fly a R22, R44 or R66….. I’m no fan of Robinson products, but they provide the opportunity for low-time pilots to build time cheaply in order to advance in this business, regardless of what anyone believes about their inherent idiosyncrasies ……

 

 

Well said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can anyone say the R22 is cheaper if a career helicopter pilot is the goal?... if you need 50 hours more than any other type?

 

Lets say an R22 costs $250/hr X 200 hours = $50k

and an enstrom or 300 costs $300/hr X 150 hours = $45k

 

The SFAR makes the Robinson a gambit for helicopter students..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much fixed wing corporate jet experience you have or how many fixed wing turbojet type ratings you hold, but in my experience such things as private pilots flying for a corporate flight department are very, very rare, and it doesn't happen with reputable departments. Further, where it does happen in rare, rare circumstances, it's with a company that's looking for a warm body to fill the seat because they're too cheap to hire a real pilot. When I say "real pilot," I mean a qualified employee with real experience, not a one hour wonder that the company could jam through a type rating course at flight safety or a quickly program at simcom.

 

Such jobs tend to not last, either.

 

250 hours of fixed wing doesn't count for much of anything. Neither does a thousand or two. Unlike helicopters, where one can go get a turbine PIC job with a thousand hours or so, one won't find such opportunities in the fixed wing world. Two fifty...plan on flying traffic in a Cessna 172, or instructing for a long, long time.

 

In the long run, however, you'll find helicopter salaries fairly capped out, whereas fixed wing the long term money will be much better, as a rule.

 

 

 

Everywhere, where? I don't see it domestically or internationally. I don't see it in the Northeast US, Southeast US, the deep south, north, midwest, or the west coast, either. Few corporate departments have opportunities for dual rated pilots, few utilize both helicopters and fixed wing. Most departments look hard for experience, and are loathe to pick up an inexperienced pilot, let alone a private pilot (who can't work for compensation or hire).

 

They got him trained up to instrument and commercial at a flight school before sending him to Flight Safety. I have quite a few examples like this.

 

Back in the day, another guy I know was a jet FO and his dual rated Captain used to bring him to our flight school in an MD902 for helicopter lessons in a R22! We all got a kick out of that. They trained him up to commercial also. It happens up in the NE more than you'd think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can anyone say the R22 is cheaper if a career helicopter pilot is the goal?... if you need 50 hours more than any other type?

 

Lets say an R22 costs $250/hr X 200 hours = $50k

and an enstrom or 300 costs $300/hr X 150 hours = $45k

 

The SFAR makes the Robinson a gambit for helicopter students..

 

But you don't need 200 hours in an R22.....

 

If you're already a CFI but have never flown in a robbie, then you need 50 hours in an R22 and 25 hours in an R44, with 200 hours total (in any aircraft).

 

.....If you're starting out fresh, you don't even need that much. Read the SFAR carefully - as a student you only need fifteen hours in robbies as long as your instructor signs you off on the required proficiencies. (10H in an R22 and 5H in an R44)

 

This can easily be accomplished during PPL training....it's not a gambit - it's a unique platform that requires extra knowledge in order to fly safely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...