A couple of myths I'd like to dispell.

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
Ok first. Let's start with the "turbine myth."


"Turbine time is more valuable than piston time because flying turbines is more difficult."

When I was flight training, I heard much about the importance of "turbine time." How important this time was to getting the big time jobs like FedEx etc. Now, having flown turbines then gone back to pistons, wellllllllll that's a bunch of BS, turbines are a million times easier, you don't have to worry about anything except for temps and torques and very rarely are those going to be a factor in flight. Just on startup. Finally, your descent profile is so much simpler. Lower the nose, accelerate to barber poll, adjust power as required to maintain barber poll.

"IFR is more challenging than VFR."

First off, I think whoever came up with this couldn't fly instruments. Yah, on a clear bluebird day where the atis just says "weather freaking beautiful" Its easier to screw around VFR. However, dodging clouds and scudrunning to get the mail/clients/whatever to point B is an exceedingly challenging proposition if you want to remain legal. Knowing when to turn back is also challenging. What is the point of no return? Plus when you're IFR you don't have to worry about pesky things like restricted areas, moas, special use airspace etc. ATC will vector you around them or give you a clearance to go through because they are "cold." IFR you're in constant communication with someone, VFR you may spend significant portions of your flight outside of communication with anyone. Finally, most of your landing are not going to be a straight in. What I mean by that is (especially if your special VFR, or the wx is right above IFR) every pattern entry is going to be essentially a circling approach.

I'm sure I'll come up with somemore, but I just had an interesting chat with a guy, and it irked me a little. Figured I'd post this.
 

Hacker15e

Dunning–Kruger Observer
"IFR is more challenging than VFR."

First off, I think whoever came up with this couldn't fly instruments. Yah, on a clear bluebird day where the atis just says "weather freaking beautiful" Its easier to screw around VFR. However, dodging clouds and scudrunning to get the mail/clients/whatever to point B is an exceedingly challenging proposition if you want to remain legal.
Seriously?

You're going to argue that ANY VFR flying is tougher than, say, a single engine nonprecision approach down to mins in a rainstorm?

Tougher than being bumped up and down in convective air, suffering from a wicked case of the leans, and having to fly the needles down a precision approach when all of your "seat of the pants" senses tells you what you're doing is wrong?
 

Cptnchia

Dissatisfied Customer
These statements ARE correct if you add back in the words that are missing. Observe:

"Turbine time is more valuable than piston time because flying turbines is more difficult."
Turbine time is more valuable than piston time because getting a job flying turbines is more difficult.

"IFR is more challenging than VFR."
Being able to afford an IFR certified airplane is more challenging than a VFR airplane.
 

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
Seriously?

You're going to argue that ANY VFR flying is tougher than, say, a single engine nonprecision approach down to mins in a rainstorm?

Tougher than being bumped up and down in convective air, suffering from a wicked case of the leans, and having to fly the needles down a precision approach when all of your "seat of the pants" senses tells you what you're doing is wrong?

Not any, I'm arguing against the blanket statement "IFR is harder than VFR"

Single engine non-precision approach to mins in a rainstorm sucks, but its not something that happens everyflight

Further, I'd argue that VFR in MVFR and SVFR conditions is essentially instrument flying anyway. You stay sharp if you do it alot.
 

TFaudree_ERAU

Mashin' dem buttons
Its hard to advance from a basic PPL and tack on the IR, just as its hard to fly piston aircraft for 1500 hours and land that first turbine gig.

Its also hard to stay proficient in flying piston aircraft under VFR if you only fly turbine aircraft under IFR.

Hard is an arbitrary term.

I am lucky in that I get to fly a piston and a turbojet aircraft on a very regular basis. When flying the piston, its hard sometimes to keep my speed up for the traffic behind me, but also have the aircraft slowed down enough so that when I get that visual approach clearance from a midfield downwind position at 5000' AGL, I can dump the flaps and get down in a reasonable time, but do so in a manner that does not risk shock cooling the engine. Thats hard.

I get to fly that piston aircraft to my home airport sometimes, mostly under VFR; a 2270' x 40' runway. Sometimes its night time, others, the wind is blowing 20 knots. Sometimes, its night time and blowing 20 knots. To land a high performance aircraft on such a short runway can be hard. The captain of the Lear has admitted that it scares the #### out of him when we're coming in to this particular airport. It doesn't bother me, as I've been flying there since day one, and the equipment has been progressively getting bigger.

Hopping out of the jet and into the prop, or vice versa, sometimes its hard and takes a minute to reacclimate myself to the flight rules I'll be applying for the flight.

The jet I fly has no FMS. We receive crossing restrictions for our descent on a regular basis. When you're going 6 miles a minute, having to listen to the ATIS, pulling charts, brief an approach, make radio calls to ATC or an FBO, all the while double checking your descent profile calculations...thats hard.

Planning your approach into the airport so that you reach the FAF on altitude and on speed is hard, especially when you're asked to keep your speed up as long as practical. Should I slow down now? Or now?
 

C150J

Well-Known Member
I think you're probably just frustrated because some guy told you that your type of flying was less difficult/challenging than his, or why he's going to land his dream job and you aren't. We've all been there man. I personally think that every airplane has its challenges. I could tell you that helicopter flying was WAY, WAY harder than fixed-wing, but that wouldn't be 100% true by any means. It all becomes routine after doing it hundreds of times - that's what makes us professionals.

The most important part of your job is your ability to enjoy it. The most important part about getting a job is networking. Don't listen to people who say "x is more important/difficult than y, which is why I'm better than you for doing x."

Don't worry, your testosterone will spend less time worrying about how much of a man you are and more time receding your hairline as you get older:).
 

Flybob37

New Member
I think you're probably just frustrated because some guy told you that your type of flying was less difficult/challenging than his, or why he's going to land his dream job and you aren't. We've all been there man. I personally think that every airplane has its challenges. I could tell you that helicopter flying was WAY, WAY harder than fixed-wing, but that wouldn't be 100% true by any means. It all becomes routine after doing it hundreds of times - that's what makes us professionals.

The most important part of your job is your ability to enjoy it. The most important part about getting a job is networking. Don't listen to people who say "x is more important/difficult than y, which is why I'm better than you for doing x."

Don't worry, your testosterone will spend less time worrying about how much of a man you are and more time receding your hairline as you get older:).
Sounds like solid advice to me.
 

germb747

Well-Known Member
Ok first. Let's start with the "turbine myth."


"Turbine time is more valuable than piston time because flying turbines is more difficult."
Turbine time is more valuable than piston time if you want to get a job flying turbine aircraft; one isn't necessarily more difficult than the other. It's like if I needed brain surgery, I'd go see a brain surgeon rather than a cardiologist. Both are good at what they do. If I operate turbine airplanes, I want to hire a pilot with turbine experience. Makes sense to me.
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
Finally, your descent profile is so much simpler. Lower the nose, accelerate to barber poll, adjust power as required to maintain barber poll.
While I think the TYPE of flying is much more important that what is powering the airplane as far as building experience goes you are just adding to myths with some of this post.

For example, what I quoted above... sure, the descent profile is easier, but there's this very annoying thing that happens at 10,000 feet (or at some crossing restriction where they want you to slow). I've watched a whole bunch of FOs (in the mirror once or twice too) do pretty much exactly what you said and then realize there was no way they were going to get down AND slow down and we ended up having to 'fess up to center that they were going to get the speed or the altitude, but not both.
 

TFaudree_ERAU

Mashin' dem buttons
For example, what I quoted above... sure, the descent profile is easier, but there's this very annoying thing that happens at 10,000 feet (or at some crossing restriction where they want you to slow). I've watched a whole bunch of FOs (in the mirror once or twice too) do pretty much exactly what you said and then realize there was no way they were going to get down AND slow down and we ended up having to 'fess up to center that they were going to get the speed or the altitude, but not both.
In my personal experience, I find that its not just FOs that have a problem with this. Riding the barber pole at 80% N1 isn't always the best descent profile. Contrary to popular belief, your man parts won't shrink if you don't ride the barber pole. I honestly believe that flying glass jets with an FMS, autopilot and autothrottle that'll do everything for you makes you complacent in simple tasks such as meeting an altitude restriction WITH a speed restriction if/when you have to step back into a steam powered airplane.

I've lost count the number of times I've had to say "ATC wants 250 knots when we cross (the waypoint), also", knowing full well that it can't be accomplished based on the position (that whole kinetic energy thing) that the PF has put us in.

P.S. I've screwed it up also.
 

C150J

Well-Known Member
I honestly believe that flying glass jets with an FMS, autopilot and autothrottle that'll do everything for you makes you complacent in simple tasks such as meeting an altitude restriction WITH a speed restriction if/when you have to step back into a steam powered airplane.

It will, but only if you let it. I try to make it a point to "mental math" all the restrictions we get before punching it into the FMS to get advisory VNAV (no autothrottles, so I can't really hit on that). I'll also contend that you can use all the gee-whiz stuff to save a good amount of fuel on the KOREY and ELDEE arrivals into LGA and DCA, respectfully.

The biggest challenge with the CRJ is knowing if you can make a "reach FL280 in 3 minutes" and anything to do wit ascents. That just comes with experience, much like your stated issue with slowing to 250 in the Lear.
 
Top