Tubine Time and time on type

[skylark172]

Hey guys,

After having talked to a lot of people, a 1000 hours TT should get you into the right seat somewhere in Canada.

Now, if the majority of your time is right seat on a Metro III instead a B1900, do employers who have neither type aircraft in their fleet have a bias to one airplane or the other? Both are similar, but it seems that the metro gets a bad reputation because of past accidents and beechcraft are looked at favourably here.

Or is multi turbine time looked at equally at the lower and middle levels, regardless of type?

Thanks!

[flying4dollars]

I'm going to guess that the reason larger companies (704/705) respect Beech 1900 time is that the aircraft is geared to act more like an airliner (hence the name, 1900 airliner). It features a glass cockpit, standup cabin, lavatory system, and cabin briefer. With the exception of a proper galley and a flight attendant, the 1900 is in fact as close to an airliner as you're going to find in the commuter turboprop class.

That's just a guess. Maybe someone else knows a few more facts about this?

[looproll]

Beechcraft are nice aircraft, for sure. I would group both of them into "over 12.5, twin turbine" with no preference between the two.

[blockheater]

Ultimately, it will depend on the job market status: Pilot's market Vs. employer's market.

Back around '04 (before the big boom) I carved my teeth on Metros for 3 years... then the music stopped cold. Despite having a few thousand hours of turbine time, I couldn't land a job on a King Air... because I didn't have P&W experience. What a bunch of crap!

We're in a busy part of the market cycle where if you're breathing with a pulse and some turbine time of any kind, doors open frequently...

Either machine will be fine, just learn and respect the plane and fly them well.

[loopa]

Also the B1900D is EFIS equipped which is valued highly

[skylark172]

Yup I agree about the EFIS. It's valuable, however I should have specified the 1900 as the C model, not the D.

[Adam Oke]

I suppose I can slip this question in here as it it somewhat relevant. Multi Engine vs Single Engine aside..... Does it matter what type of turbine engine? (Walter vs Garrett vs Pratt?) The reason I ask, is I commonly see "PT6 time preferred" in job ad's.

Eg. An ag pilot with a 1000hrs behind a Walter Air Tractor jumping into the IFR world full of Pratts? Any issue aside from knowing when to introduce fuel ?

[boeingboy]

Also the B1900D is EFIS equipped which is valued highly

So does the metro 23

[flyinhigh]

Personally from my standpoint.

I really don't see the big deal with turbines, there easier to start, they go a little faster and are 100% more reliable than a piston.

The hardest day I've had was on a beaver at 30 deg C. You ever try to start a beaver when its that hot? You wobble the shit out of it, than depending on how your loaded watch the engine temps so you don't over heat, don't shock cool, etc.

Turbine, push start make sure it doesn't hang or hot start and go. There is no worry of shock cooling, I've never had to fight starting a turbine.

Yes the Aircraft systems- Pressurization, Fuel, Electrical are more complex but not running them.

So if you can fly a beaver, beech 18 and got 1000 hours on them. In my mind your more valuable than a guy that's got 1000 hours right seat on a king air regardless of the type of engine.

That's just me though

[Northern Flyer]

Personally from my standpoint.

I really don't see the big deal with turbines, there easier to start, they go a little faster and are 100% more reliable than a piston.

The hardest day I've had was on a beaver at 30 deg C. You ever try to start a beaver when its that hot? You wobble the shit out of it, than depending on how your loaded watch the engine temps so you don't over heat, don't shock cool, etc.

Turbine, push start make sure it doesn't hang or hot start and go. There is no worry of shock cooling, I've never had to fight starting a turbine.

Yes the Aircraft systems- Pressurization, Fuel, Electrical are more complex but not running them.

So if you can fly a beaver, beech 18 and got 1000 hours on them. In my mind your more valuable than a guy that's got 1000 hours right seat on a king air regardless of the type of engine.

That's just me though

I would tend to agree with you. A turbine is quite simple to operate. However the fact that one engine on a King air 200 for example is worth more than most beavers, an operator usually likes a pilot to have some sort of turbine experience.

[gasper]

...Hmmm I think it took at least a day to be very proficient on the B1900 EFIS. But then again ...what do I know?

[Doc]

I would tend to agree with you. A turbine is quite simple to operate. However the fact that one engine on a King air 200 for example is worth more than most beavers, an operator usually likes a pilot to have some sort of turbine experience.

This is a mentality I find very hard to understand????

Turbine....spin it....feed it.....fly it. WTF?

Radial....pre-heat it.....hand turn several blades.....prime it.....coax it.....coax it again....hit the starter....count the blades......turn the mags on....feed it....hope to catch it.....coax it....coax it some more......tend to it's ways......nurse it to idle smoothly......more or less......monitor it's oil temps......open it's gills for even heating......nurse it.....increase power....put up with it's farts and bangs.....exercise it's sleeping props....wake it up...gently ease the power to take off......reduce the power.....reduce the power again.......and one more time in cruise....

"Pilot wanted....must have 1000 hours turbine time.....WTF?

[co-joe]

Take the route that
a) gets you to the left seat quicker. Turbine multi PIC is gold.
b) if both equal, take the route that puts more time in the log book. Total time is important to everyone.

once you have 500 turbine multi PIC then get picky.

[Northern Flyer]

I would tend to agree with you. A turbine is quite simple to operate. However the fact that one engine on a King air 200 for example is worth more than most beavers, an operator usually likes a pilot to have some sort of turbine experience.

This is a mentality I find very hard to understand????

Turbine....spin it....feed it.....fly it. WTF?

Radial....pre-heat it.....hand turn several blades.....prime it.....coax it.....coax it again....hit the starter....count the blades......turn the mags on....feed it....hope to catch it.....coax it....coax it some more......tend to it's ways......nurse it to idle smoothly......more or less......monitor it's oil temps......open it's gills for even heating......nurse it.....increase power....put up with it's farts and bangs.....exercise it's sleeping props....wake it up...gently ease the power to take off......reduce the power.....reduce the power again.......and one more time in cruise....

"Pilot wanted....must have 1000 hours turbine time.....WTF?

Let me explain, there are very few operators who give two shits about radials these days. Most of the people doing the hiring have never operated aircraft with radial engines. It's an art that is being lost and so be it. Technology has improved life goes on, get over it.

[Diadem]

I'd say the biggest factor in hiring someone with turbine experience is not the operation of the engine itself, but the type of aircraft to which that engine is fastened. Turbine aircraft tend to be larger and faster than their piston-powered counterparts, and are often pressurized. If an operator wants someone with that type of experience, rather than flying a Navajo or 172 at 3000 feet, they could either list every type of aircraft they would consider acceptable ("Candidate must have 1000 hours on King Air, Metro, Beech 1900, etc, or any combination thereof") or they could just put the generic "turbine". Chances are, anyone without turbine time probably doesn't have a significant amount of experience flying at over 200 knots or above 10000 feet.

[flyinhigh]

I don't know, slogging along at 100 Knts at 200' with a mile via seems a lot faster to me than sitting at 250 doing 250 Knts. The trees just don't look like there going by fast like down low.


Just making banter here, I do know what you mean

[trey kule]

The Pratt PT6 series engines are old technology, so to speak.. There are limitations on the torque, that are not indicated on the guage and have to be determined by the pilot. these limitations are subject to further limitations of ITT for various phases of flight, and both are subject to Ng limitations.
The pilot flying a PT6 has to monitor all three and provide the necessary adjustment to ensure that whichever is the limiting condition is met at any particular time...
The issue is that while they are great engines, they can be a bit unforgiving if a pilot does not do their job properly, and as they are simple enough, it is easy to make an error. An error can be very very expensive.

The second issue for transitioning pilot is that many of the controls appear similar to those they have flown with in piston airplanes, but have quite different functions.. The throttle, for example, also controls the propeller in certain positions, and can, in fact reverse the propller, and bring on power in reverse. The condition lever, which seems similar to a mixture control, is actually a big switch, that opens either one or two nozzles in the chambers depending on its postion. I have found new transitioning pilots to have difficulty remembering all the limitations for using these levers.

When properly handled they are a super reliable, very nice engine..But experience counts to avoid rather costly errors.

I would expect this is why some operators want time on type.