Jet Time as a Minimum..

Let us not cofuse flying a Mustang with moving from a larger turbo prop to a large jet. A mustang is a unique aircraft in its own right. For the most part most biz jets and even airline type jets are similiar.

The jet time requirement is, IMO, more about basic level of knowledge than skill. A lot of places that operate biz type jets fly 200 hours a year. With the first 100 or so hours in a any type of aircraft being a learning curve you're looking at 6 months of learning with far less reps in the aircraft. Someone with those prerequisite reps in place is a few steps ahead of someone without.
 
Dugie8 said:
Let us not cofuse flying a Mustang with moving from a larger turbo prop to a large jet. A mustang is a unique aircraft in its own right. For the most part most biz jets and even airline type jets are similiar.

The jet time requirement is, IMO, more about basic level of knowledge than skill. A lot of places that operate biz type jets fly 200 hours a year. With the first 100 or so hours in a any type of aircraft being a learning curve you're looking at 6 months of learning with far less reps in the aircraft. Someone with those prerequisite reps in place is a few steps ahead of someone without.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point.
There is BOTH knowledge and skill. If you don't have the basics climbing into the cockpit, you won't make it when things start happening quicker. There are skills at the jet level just like there are skills at the SkyCatcher level. You can't hop in with a closed, TP-mindset and do well in a TJ (IMHO).
 
I think that a Jet time requirement is pointless(turbine is turbine)...however I believe FMS time and the type of operation you're in (135, 121, 91, 91K) is way more important.
[depending on where you want to go of course]
 
CFIT99 said:
I think that a Jet time requirement is pointless(turbine is turbine)...however I believe FMS time and the type of operation you're in (135, 121, 91, 91K) is way more important.
[depending on where you want to go of course]
Click to expand...

Turbine is not turbine. How often do you hear a t-prop having to tell ATC "I don't think we are going to make that altitude" vs something without props saying the same. How hard is it for a King Air to blow through 250kts vs a Lear31, or a Lear60, or even the Lear55 if you're not careful.
 
mshunter said:
Turbine is not turbine. How often do you hear a t-prop having to tell ATC "I don't think we are going to make that altitude" vs something without props saying the same. How hard is it for a King Air to blow through 250kts vs a Lear31, or a Lear60, or even the Lear55 if you're not careful.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure thats an example of knowledge of the aircraft and not if of how TP is different then a Jet.

I'm in a lowly saab...if I'm not carefull I can easily blow through 250.
 
Dugie8 said:
Let us not cofuse flying a Mustang with moving from a larger turbo prop to a large jet. A mustang is a unique aircraft in its own right. For the most part most biz jets and even airline type jets are similiar.

The jet time requirement is, IMO, more about basic level of knowledge than skill. A lot of places that operate biz type jets fly 200 hours a year. With the first 100 or so hours in a any type of aircraft being a learning curve you're looking at 6 months of learning with far less reps in the aircraft. Someone with those prerequisite reps in place is a few steps ahead of someone without.
Click to expand...

Ryan's comment wasn't about any similarity between a Mustang and any jet -- it had to do with breadth of experience of a pilot. In the same way that a military pilot with high performance jet time needs some other type of experience in order to be a skilled warbird pilot, an up-and-coming civil pilot needs jet experience to have the breadth of experience needed to be a 121 pilot.

FWIW, I wouldn't call a Mustang a 'unique' aircraft -- it's an airplane, just like a lot of other airplanes of that same mid-century high performance single engine taildragger class. In the same way that "most biz jets" are similar, most fighter/trainer warbirds are similar too.
 
CFIT99 said:
I think that a Jet time requirement is pointless(turbine is turbine)...however I believe FMS time and the type of operation you're in (135, 121, 91, 91K) is way more important.
[depending on where you want to go of course]
Click to expand...
It isn't the operation of the engine (Turbo props got the blue ribbon on complexity there) its the speed, performance considerations, fuel considerations, etc that a lot of jets require some time, more specifically in type, to learn the ropes.

When we went to BeechJets we had a guy with some time in them come and fly with all us PICs for a trip or two to get our feet under us, the little tips and tricks he had were things we probably would have taken a few months to hammer out through trial and error. We all had a fair chunk of jet time as well, coupled with the fact the BE400 is a fairly simple airplane.
 
Hacker15e said:
Ryan's comment wasn't about any similarity between a Mustang and any jet -- it had to do with breadth of experience of a pilot. In the same way that a military pilot with high performance jet time needs some other type of experience in order to be a skilled warbird pilot, an up-and-coming civil pilot needs jet experience to have the breadth of experience needed to be a 121 pilot.

FWIW, I wouldn't call a Mustang a 'unique' aircraft -- it's an airplane, just like a lot of other airplanes of that same mid-century high performance single engine taildragger class. In the same way that "most biz jets" are similar, most fighter/trainer warbirds are similar too.
Click to expand...

There are, readily available to fly, aircraft that have similiar handling charachteristics to a Mustang out there? A real, honest to God Mustang.
 
Uh huh. The T-6/SNJ for one that is particularly widely available. The saying goes that after a few hundred hours of Mustang time, you're ready to fly the Six.

Every other fighter -- Bearcat, Sea Fury, Spitfire, Corsair, etc -- as well. They're all so similar enough that for many of the fighters that do not have two-seat trainers, pilots go through the Stallion 51 Mustang training program as a lead-on to the experimental type rating.
 
A guy like me can go out and get training in a T-6, ie no mil experience, no tailwheel, no radial experience, mostly turbine time??
 
I love the college/jet time/didn't network well enough debate.

What we fail to understand as pilots is that airlines are corporations that hire PEOPLE, not logbooks. If they hired logbooks, then all that would matter is your total time, time in type, blah blah blah.

But that's not the world we live in. It never has been, and some people have yet to realize this. Airlines require things like jet time, time in type, FMS time, or, dare I say it, a college degree, for a number of reasons. One of the biggest reasons I have to imagine an airline would want to hire somebody with a college degree is because they think it will make them a better employee, not a better pilot. There comes a point where anybody can do this job, but not everybody is a high enough quality applicant to take on, put a ton of money into, and then have to get along with over 4 days.

Further, do you think those people in HR in ANY company, be it a corporate flight department, airline or charter/fractional gig don't have 4 year degrees at a base level? Why in the world would they want to hire a PILOT, somebody that they're entrusting millions of dollars worth of equipment to, if they can't get off their butts long enough to finish college. Those folks in HR even did that, and they're shuffling paperwork for large parts of their day.

To not meet the minimum requirements for a job, ANY job, shows an HR department that you're not serious. Be a serious candidate, meet the minimums, set yourself apart, go above and beyond, and network, network, network. But at the base level, meet the minimum requirements, and if you don't? Find a way to meet the minimum requirements. If I had applied to school without taking the LSAT I would have had my application sent directly to the circular file, with a note thanking me for the $50 donation in the form of an application fee. I didn't complain about how inapplicable, hard, or just plain annoying the test was; I took it, filled out the rather extensive application, and placed my bets.
 
Dugie8 said:
A guy like me can go out and get training in a T-6, ie no mil experience, no tailwheel, no radial experience, mostly turbine time??
Click to expand...

Of course. Here is everything you need to know to fly military surplus aircraft. The best part is when you have enough experience they will just slap an "unlimited rating" on your certificate for these aircraft so that you only need an endorsement to fly other types instead of full blown checkrides.
 
jtrain609 said:
To not meet the minimum requirements for a job, ANY job, shows an HR department that you're not serious.
Click to expand...

Because we all have access to a jet to get our time. I can't grab study material and all of a sudden have jet time like you did with your test.

Some people are established at their prop jobs where leaving for a jet job would be a large pay cut. What about the people hoping for a jet slot at Horizon? An unlucky regional choice shows they are "not serious"?

Computers are how they hire for the most part these days. The computer turns people into numbers. You could be an Air Force C-130 pilot with some of the best training in the world and the computer will punt your application because you don't meet the jet requirement. The "above and beyond" requirement wouldn't help as your resume was already discarded by the computer.

Networking is the only way I can think of to get around the computer. If you have bad networking skills you could be toast in this industry.
 
Maurus said:
Networking is the only way I can think of to get around the computer. If you have bad networking skills you could be toast in this industry.
Click to expand...

There are those on this very site who have resorted to "negative networking", then wonder why they aren't finding jobs.....
 
I can never wrap my head around threads like this. I skimmed most posts, and the usual suspects had some very good points, so I'll apologize if I steal/repeat/beat a dead horse.

1) College Degrees: I don't see why people are averse to this requirement on any level. Can you fly any aeroplane without one? Of course. We always see threads about "more training" or " how training can be improved". Like it or not, there is a significant amount of academic knowledge for our profession. Personally, if you are a civilian pilot coming through the ranks, I would strongly recommend a FLIGHT degree. A degree in anything else (even Aviation Management for those that wanna be VPS) is much a waste of dollars, UNLESS; you are going to be trained by the military to fly planes. That personal preference aside, a college degree shows you can complete a curriculum of focused studies. You may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer (me), but you have shown that you can do what needs to be done to complete the program.

2) Jet time: Yes, anyone can fly a jet. It's not really overly difficult with the right mix of Knowledge, Skill & Experience and completing an appropriate training program. No different than any other type of a "specialized" flying skill, such as flying a radial, tailwheel, Pressurized AC, turbocharged piston or turboprop. Once the skill is acquired, it is acquired. It Will atrophy without use, but relearning the skill will not take much time.

However, there are operations where "learning a jet" is not the time or place to do that. 121 domestic environment? Excellent place to learn with the high number of cycles. Doesn't matter the skill(s) being acquired. Other operations where a pilot flies once or twice a month, crosses oceans and headed to a unique and dangerous destination (say Quito); probably not the best place to add experience to a solid foundation of knowledge and a different set of experience.

There is a time and place for everything- acquiring "experience" included.

3) Being a professional pilot: We all have our opinions formed via our experiences, and our preferred way of doing things. When you are a professional, unless you happen to be the individual setting procedure, you are expected to fly the airplane the way the owner/Boss/whomever wants. Use your toolbox built up from Knowledge, Experience and Skill to allow yourself to fly the way the owner wants. No one is perfect, and it seems like someone at each organization gets paid by the procedural change, professionals strive to adapt to the procedures given everyday. No matter the individual disdain for the procedure.

When you show up for day one of class, you are expected to know certain fundamental things. Things like; How an IDG works, Fundamentals of your Powerplant works, How airplanes pressurized. You should know all of this (Ref #1). Class is to teach you how it works in THIS airplane.

4) All you do is sit there and watch the AP/FD and program the FMS: Everyday thousands of pilots are handflying OEI ILS approaches to minimums to a landing (or event-driven missed) for the first time in 6 mos. Being Professionals, they get it right for reasons already explained. Is everyone and everything 100% all the time? No, but pretty damn close.

5) Pilots of (insert your prejudices) can't fly (insert what you do): That's just ridiculous. Are there a handful of planes that require a certain confluence of skills and innate ability? Sure. A handful. The rest can be flown given a confluence of Knowledge, Skill, Experience and training. Going up the ladder, or coming down. It just takes commitment to getting the job done. If a 747 pilot can back train to fly a glider, I'd say most gaps in between will work out.
 
Maurus said:
Because we all have access to a jet to get our time. I can't grab study material and all of a sudden have jet time like you did with your test.

Some people are established at their prop jobs where leaving for a jet job would be a large pay cut. What about the people hoping for a jet slot at Horizon? An unlucky regional choice shows they are "not serious"?

Computers are how they hire for the most part these days. The computer turns people into numbers. You could be an Air Force C-130 pilot with some of the best training in the world and the computer will punt your application because you don't meet the jet requirement. The "above and beyond" requirement wouldn't help as your resume was already discarded by the computer.

Networking is the only way I can think of to get around the computer. If you have bad networking skills you could be toast in this industry.
Click to expand...

Such is life. There are people that get things done, that achieve at all costs, and there are those that make excuses.

I've made the choice in my life to not make excuses.
 
jtrain609 said:
Such is life. There are people that get things done, that achieve at all costs, and there are those that make excuses.

I've made the choice in my life to not make excuses.
Click to expand...

Personally I haven't gotten to the point where I need any excuses. My route could land me at a major before an RJ guy, but then again it may not. Risks are needed in a career at some point.

If anything seeing these new requirements just shows how much longer it will take to get to a "dream job". The economy hasn't helped with this as insurance has been able to ask for some crazy requirements in different parts of the industry. Realistically the jet time requirement will most likely drop when hiring increases at the majors.
 
It really doesn't matter why you don't have jet time or why you don't have a degree. Companies can and do dictate the minimums they want out of applicants, it doesn't matter to them if the minimums are fair or unfair to you.

Getting a degree and jet time any way you can will only help you. I've yet to see a job posting that excluded college grads or jet experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top