Recurrent for Initial?

ahw01 said:
That’s a fine aircraft. The 6000 even better :)
Click to expand...
The Global (all models) is a solid airplane but it always seemed overly complicated from my end, the pilots didn't have to think a lot but those of us taking care of them sure did. They're not easy to work on for anything other than basic line MX because to get to anything you have to remove a bunch of stuff and because they were always trying to keep pace with Gulfstream they kept adding more stuff. It all looked very finished and fancy until you had to take half of the FWD cabin apart to get to a power supply for an indirect lighting power supply and the airplane is supposed to leave 30 minutes later. And as far as Bombardier caring about pilots I can talk about one that I used to work on that had a vacuum lav (a completely over engineered and complicated system) for the pax and an old blue juice lav up front for the crew. Imagine pulling up on the ramp all proud in your majestic Global 5000 and having to wait to be 100% absolutely sure the poop receptacles were serviced properly by line service at the FBO, the only reason you're willing to wait 2 hours for the honeybucket is because the last time you didn't the nice lady behind the counter at the FBO in South America didn't translate your specific instructions with quite as much precision as you'd hoped and not only was everyone on board forced to use the FWD lav but it also cost over $50,000 to repair once you got home. Live and learn I guess but mixing up the two specific methods of dealing with human waste seems the sort of streams that shouldn't cross. I like Globals but I prefer Gulfstreams.
 
Oxman said:
Now I just got rescheduled for a 3 day recurrent class and an initial. Two sims and a check ride in a plane I've never seen.
Click to expand...
It's been about 10 years since I did the KA200 course at CAE (DFW), but I remember it being similar. I finished F900 recurrent and then did a couple sim sessions in the KA200 and a check-ride. This was all pt.91.
 
CoffeeIcePapers said:
You’ll be fine. The avionics are probably what will hold you back the most. If you have turboprop experience, it should be relatively painless. With that said, I would question any operation cheaping out on training. Who knows what other corners they cut in the operation?
Click to expand...

I saw a similar thing in KSA gov/mil/diplomatic ops where they would pay for sim time but not type for the 1900. They were afraid to lose a new hire with a new type.

Beyond that, the Saudis kinda have a “you’re a pilot, you can fly it” attitude even when it’s not a money thing.

Decades ago, I showed up to teach marine navigation and got checked out in a PC-7 and was offered a job as an instructor. At that time, I had about 300 hours PIC, 160 in KA’s. I didn’t take a job but within a few months I had a KA gig.
 
Oxman said:
I walked away.
Click to expand...

If it doesn’t feel right, walk away.

If you had recent KA experience, maybe you would have been comfortable. In the KSA, they recruit leisurely then rush to get folks in the air.

The Saudis respect American pilots as they are versatile, usually pretty successful adapting to new airframes and avionics.

I transitioned from B200’s to B300’s without getting typed but the Saudis were comfortable with me bringing in an experienced 350 pilot to fly with for a few weeks. It was nice to have an experienced pilot teach me what I needed to know along with all the gotcha’s.

Beyond that, I’ve had a number of situations where I crewed on unfamiliar types in a safety or comms (English proficiency) role. My role was to keep Saudi pax from pressuring Saudi pilots into doing stupid pilot tricks. Mostly go/no-go authority with regards to weather conditions, go-arounds, accepting sketchy clearances, etc. I was also the checklist cop. Checklist discipline is a big problem in the ME. Hard to believe that somebody paid me to make sure that a 737 crew was using a checklist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top