King Air captains wanted, 1500 hours??

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:33 pm

1500 hours? For a King Air captain? That's not enough. We're going to have accidents. Lots of them. Sorry. While there are guys running around with 1500 hours that would do a fine job.....there are too many who wouldn't. Are these companies willing to take this chance? I guess they are. Don't forget, we are not dealing with pavement to pavement airports here. We are dealing with potentially nasty, dark, windy places...and 1500 hours just doesn't cut it! Thoughts?

looproll · Post by **looproll** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:06 pm

Where do yo draw the line though? Less than 1500 is low, but why can't you judge each pilot for their merits as well as hours? It's such a numbers game.

Falken · Post by **Falken** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:07 pm

I think you've answered your own question there:

While there are guys running around with 1500 hours that would do a fine job.....there are too many who wouldn't.

The company doesn't want to hire too many King Air Captains.. they just want one (the one who would do a fine job).

Besides that, in all likelyhood, they're going to get applicants with 3k hours and just throw out all the 1.5k resumes that they get.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:14 pm

I don't see your point. A King Air flown 2 crew is a far safer aircraft for a beginner pilot than a light piston twin flown single pilot IFR. Yet pilots are routinely hired with 1000 TT or less for Captain on the piston. I have flown both and can say that a King Air is farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr easier to fly than a piston twin. Not only that, the level of decision making is way less in the King Air where I am above the weather, have a lot more power in reserve and reverse for short, slippery runways. The King Airs are also usually more reliable and far more systems for emergencies to reduce pilot workload such as extinguishers and auto-feathers. You give me an engine out at night right after takeoff in a piston twin and I need everything in my favour to return for landing. The same scenario in a -200 two crew with auto feather and rudder boost and it would be easily capable of returning. Added to that, mean times between failures on PT6s are way higher than pistons.

The real reason pilots need more time for turbines is because either the contract requires it or the hull value is higher and therefore the insurance companies dictate a higher experience level. I would have complete confidence in any of my piston captains at 1000 TT operating as Captain in a turbine provided they were properly trained, although the insurance underwriters would never allow it.

Why would a 1500TT captain with sufficient prior experience (say 1000 multi with 500 on type SIC) be any more risk than a 3000 TT pilot with maybe a spotty background, questionable decision making and a bunch of instructor time? I mean, even a 500 hour pilot can fly F18s onto decks of carriers at night and go head to head in air combat given enough training.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:45 pm

You'd just find a 1500 hour guy easier to "push" out the door on a night he should stay home. A 3000 hour guy might tell you to "pound sand". I don't mean "you", but any operator in general. Low time guys are easier to "bully"!

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:16 pm

Agreed, but you're still not answering the question. If a pilot is flying into conditions he's not ready for, he should at least have the best equipment and training possible. Given very poor conditions and an inexperienced pilot, the new pilot will be far safer in a decent -200 than a twin piston. A -200 will cover up a lot of poor piloting technique from landing long on ice, misidentifying the dead engine or being unable to correctly interpret FAs and getting stuck in heavy ice. All those same conditions single pilot piston twin will have a much higher potential for an accident. We as pilots have just become so accustomed to higher time = better equipment that we can't take a step back to see just how illogical it really is.

The way I see things, the whole industry is backwards. Yous should start off cruise pilot/FO in a Boeing, then as you acquire experience, move into the smaller, more demanding aircraft until you end up at 50 years old as single pilot Captain on the twin piston which would be the most demanding, especially in an emergency. Once you hit 55, then you would qualify to work as an instructor on a 172.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:41 am

Yes Anonymous1, you are oh so correct. I've always wondered why in this business the lowest time/experience pilots get the toughest jobs. Why is it the person with 50 hrs on floats is flying the underpowered POS and the high time float drivers get -3t or -6?? Which is harder to do and more dangerous?

Anyhow, I guess smarter people than us make these decisions..

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:04 am

Anonymous1 wrote:Agreed, but you're still not answering the question. If a pilot is flying into conditions he's not ready for, he should at least have the best equipment and training possible. Given very poor conditions and an inexperienced pilot, the new pilot will be far safer in a decent -200 than a twin piston. A -200 will cover up a lot of poor piloting technique from landing long on ice, misidentifying the dead engine or being unable to correctly interpret FAs and getting stuck in heavy ice. All those same conditions single pilot piston twin will have a much higher potential for an accident.

So the equipment is so improved that low experience, poor knowledge and "flying in conditions he's not ready for" is acceptable?

Next we'll be accepting "fair weather captains". My yes/no factor when it came to promotions was easy. If, based on their performance, i could visualize a guy handling the worst equipment, worst weather, worst airport scenario, and still had the maturity and composure to handle the passengers, they were ready to promote. You have to look at the individual. That being said, you generally don't find that at 1500 hours.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:07 am

Next airshow you're at, keep in mind that the guy flying the CF-188 demo probably has around 1500 hours. If he was a civilian, he would probably need ten times that much.

This reflects very, very poorly upon civilian training, which obviously extends long beyond bare commercial/mifr, which consists primarily of demonstrating a forced approach, a hold and two approaches in the most docile aircraft that a manufacturer can design.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:57 am

Anonymous1 wrote:I don't see your point. A King Air flown 2 crew is a far safer aircraft for a beginner pilot than a light piston twin flown single pilot IFR. Yet pilots are routinely hired with 1000 TT or less for Captain on the piston. I have flown both and can say that a King Air is farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr easier to fly than a piston twin. Not only that, the level of decision making is way less in the King Air where I am above the weather, have a lot more power in reserve and reverse for short, slippery runways. The King Airs are also usually more reliable and far more systems for emergencies to reduce pilot workload such as extinguishers and auto-feathers. You give me an engine out at night right after takeoff in a piston twin and I need everything in my favour to return for landing. The same scenario in a -200 two crew with auto feather and rudder boost and it would be easily capable of returning. Added to that, mean times between failures on PT6s are way higher than pistons.

The real reason pilots need more time for turbines is because either the contract requires it or the hull value is higher and therefore the insurance companies dictate a higher experience level. I would have complete confidence in any of my piston captains at 1000 TT operating as Captain in a turbine provided they were properly trained, although the insurance underwriters would never allow it.

Why would a 1500TT captain with sufficient prior experience (say 1000 multi with 500 on type SIC) be any more risk than a 3000 TT pilot with maybe a spotty background, questionable decision making and a bunch of instructor time? I mean, even a 500 hour pilot can fly F18s onto decks of carriers at night and go head to head in air combat given enough training.

Because most 1500 hour pilots out there are either instructors or Float drivers, neither has the IFR experience to jump into a King Air in northern anything and fly it proficiently.
Now a copilot with a good attitude, and a few hundred hours on type, a solid background in IFR, knows thier limits, and most importantly has the confidence of thier captains - thats a 1500 hour pilot you could upgrade.

app flap · Post by **app flap** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:13 am

thats a 1500 hour pilot you could upgrade.

however, they don't meet the PIC requirements - so instructor buddy sits left while the F/O with 1000 hours on type with the operation sits in the right

bcflyer · Post by **bcflyer** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:12 am

Hedley wrote:Next airshow you're at, keep in mind that the guy flying the CF-188 demo probably has around 1500 hours. If he was a civilian, he would probably need ten times that much.

This reflects very, very poorly upon civilian training, which obviously extends long beyond bare commercial/mifr, which consists primarily of demonstrating a forced approach, a hold and two approaches in the most docile aircraft that a manufacturer can design.

I don't think it reflects poorly on civilian training, they are two completely different animals. The Military doesn't have to show a profit at the end of the year. As a result basically all they do is train over and over and over, the cost means nothing. The civilian operator doesn't have that luxury.

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:58 pm

i agree with doc, 1500hrs is not enough for a king air captain in anything but the most perfect conditions. It's just not enough real world experience to draw upon when something abnormal pops up.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:09 pm

So Endless, then how much time should a pilot have for single pilot IFR twin piston ops in the north? After all, the piston twin is far more difficult to fly and handle in an emergency and less forgiveable from mistakes.

john_brown · Post by **john_brown** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:16 pm

In WW II Lancasters launched often with 25 hours crews...

Those that did not get engine failures or IFR conditions survived,
not that many admittedly.

I once trained a 600 hours guy as Challenger Captain(just sim)
I asked him how much jet time he had and the answer was
25, in Korea, on F-86, the rest on Beech Duchess...

It goes to show that what matter is who you know, not what you
are...and if you want to kill yourself and can afford it, nothing
will stop you.

You should have seen these two brothers that purchased eventually
hundreds of Canadairs...Hells Angels are more careful of their
steeds than these two clowns of their airplane!!!

looproll · Post by **looproll** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:18 pm

The Military doesn't have to show a profit at the end of the year. As a result basically all they do is train over and over and over, the cost means nothing.

not really true as each course you go on, Primar Flight Training, Basic, Advanced etc, can wash you out very quickly and there is no retraining, you're CT'd and no more flying for you. It's a very steep learning curve and you must meet very definite objectives and standards on each training flight.

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:24 pm

Anonymous1 wrote:So Endless, then how much time should a pilot have for single pilot IFR twin piston ops in the north? After all, the piston twin is far more difficult to fly and handle in an emergency and less forgiveable from mistakes.

having flown pa-31's and the same beech you used to fly i can tell you that the navajo was the easier plane to fly by far. Yes the beech has far more advanced systems etc, that only allows the crew to cope with the increased workload.

the faa very blunty makes it clear that you're not assured to walk away from a navajo engine failure. just because your plane doesn't have the performance doesn't mean that it's harder to fly.

3juggs · Post by **3juggs** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:26 pm

I've flown with a couple Captains in my day that shouldn't of been Captains with 4000hrs not alone 1500hrs. I agree 1500hrs isn't a whole lot of time or experience but the quality of Captains can't be just defined by hours but many factors such as flying background and the individual themselves. Companies really have to beware of hiring direct entry Captains that meet their requirements on paper. They are much better off upgrading a high time FO from within if [b]possible[/b] because they are a product of their own training, they know company routes and SOP's and other Captains within the company have molded them.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:37 pm

Endless, why make such a stupid comment?

Let's see.....piston twin:
No reverse.
Difficult to adjust rates of descent quickly.
Have to fly right through all the weather
No autofeather
No rudder boost
Limited power
Poor heat
Less reliable engines
Fewer system monitors
No engine fire extinguishers
Poor ice shedding
and on and on and on....

So exactly why is a piston twin single pilot IFR easier to fly than a 2 crew turbine?

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:11 pm

Anonymous1 wrote:Endless, why make such a stupid comment?

Let's see.....piston twin:
No reverse. Ref speed is 75kts vs 115kts
Difficult to adjust rates of descent quickly. bullshit, chop and drop
Have to fly right through all the weather agreed
No autofeather no where near the drag that big 4 bladed props have
No rudder boost doesn't need the rudder authority
Limited power agreed
Poor heat can also open the windows in the summer in flight.
Less reliable engines agreed
Fewer system monitors fewer systems to monitor. 28v DC vs 28v dc, 115v ac, 26v ac, various punmatic and bleed systems. get a grip.
No engine fire extinguishers agreed
Poor ice shedding agreed
and on and on and on....

So exactly why is a piston twin single pilot IFR easier to fly than a 2 crew turbine?

so where does your logic end, a navajo is more demanding than a simple jet too? or just a complex high power turboprop?

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:18 pm

Hedley wrote:Next airshow you're at, keep in mind that the guy flying the CF-188 demo probably has around 1500 hours. If he was a civilian, he would probably need ten times that much.

This reflects very, very poorly upon civilian training, which obviously extends long beyond bare commercial/mifr, which consists primarily of demonstrating a forced approach, a hold and two approaches in the most docile aircraft that a manufacturer can design.

Does that go the same for the f16 pilots who've friendly fired our canadian butts in afghanistan atleast twice now???

Don't start one of these matches, about superior training and this and that....

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:14 pm

A King Air 200 can go when a wise Navajo crew should be sipping brews at the local watering hole. That's decision a 1500 hour guy just does not have the background to make. And It's decision he should not be making. Oh, I've flown with guys that could in theory do the job. I've flown with guys with 4000 hours who shouldn't be flying at all. That's not the point. It's a disservice to the public to put a captain in a position to "learn" on the passenger's dime. I'd go with 2500-3000 hours, and a strong background in Navajos/402's etc. Maybe a couple of thousand bush hours for the decision making background....but 1500? NFW!
1500 hours? FO, for a year...then, we'll talk.

Captain CADORS · Post by **Captain CADORS** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:43 pm

Anyone know what happened back in the early 1990's when guys were going captain on turbines with 1000-1500hrs? More accidents?

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:11 pm

Ok,

I wasn't going to wade into this one...

I worked at a company who put MANY 1200-1500hr pilots in the left seat of King Airs, VFR, Single Pilot, with a transition to SPIFR a little later on, like 500hrs on type.

In my humble opinion, it was a disaster. I've never flown more tired, clapped out engines in my life, I personally played Flt Instructor for about a 100hrs with one individual. Argue in favour if you like, but I for one do not think 1500hrs is adequate, here's why:

Pilot Type

"Bush" background with lots of VFR PIC in singles or simple multi

-lack the experience with the IFR environment, busy airspace, more complex A/C, after 250-500hrs on type, no problem

Instructor background with 1300 PIC

-In the circuit in good weather - no brainer there, not even close to being ready.

The F/O with 1300hrs on type.

-Started career in the right seat, underdeveloped decision making skills, lack of general experience. Either give them LOTS more time, or pack them off to a light twin, or even better a single VFR.

Where it becomes tricky is the gal/guy with a little bit of each, then you may have a pilot that could do the job well enough with the proper training and tutelage - too bad our system in Canada produces so few of these. Besides, if someone is able to have a relatively broad experience level at those hrs, they'll have a bunch of CP's asking why they've had three jobs...

Just my take

STL

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:43 am

My take - for what it's worth...

You guys should stop generalizing so much. There are lots of 1500 hour pilots who don't belong in any plane. There are some 5000 hour pilots who make you wonder how they made it there alive.

I think the maturity level and character of the individual is a determining factor as much as - actually more than - their time and experience in airplanes. Time in aeroplanes is a poor way of judging what someone is capable of. Looking at the big picture: someone's potential, character, ability and experience is what should be done in determining capability.

I saw a guy, with a bunch of time in piston twins, recently get hired on a King Air with the plan to go captain after some time on type. He failed his ride and washed out of the retraining because he sucked. Made you wonder how he made it alive to where he was - guaranteed lots of f/o's who didn't have the "time" to go captain would have done better than this guy with more "experience".

As to what is easier... I've been on PA31s and BE20s. Initially transitioning, the King Air systems seem like a lot to digest - but with some time on type it is a non-isue and you wonder why you thought something was complicated... It certainly isn't more difficult to fly than a Ho... Not that it's easier either - It's an airplane! We need to get over that.

King Air captains wanted, 1500 hours??

King Air captains wanted, 1500 hours??

What happened in the '90's?