Airline navigation

[avbug]

Many turboprops are certified to fly well above those altitudes, actually, but most become very performance-limited. I used to fly a turboprop airplane at FL410 with regularity; it performed quite nicely there.

Unlike a turbojet aircraft, turbopropeller powerplants achieve only about 10% of their thrust from the turbine; the rest comes from the propeller. The propeller loses efficiency as altitude increases, and due to design of the powerplant, the ability to operate at higher RPM values to assure efficiency is limited. Turbopropeller powerplants also typically offer lower thrust values than turbojet engines found on large airliners; this is a tradeoff for weight and efficiency, appropriate to the size and design of the airplane.

Turbopropeller aircraft are limited somewhat in their forward speed that can be achieved, by design of the propeller. When the propeller tips exceed critical mach (the point on the propeller blade at which airflow first exceeds the speed of sound for a given air density/temperature), their efficiency drops markedly, and harmonic vibrations can be set up. The airflow over the propeller, unlike the wing, is a function not only of forward airspeed, but of RPM. Propeller driven aircraft become speed limited because they're propeller driven aircraft.

Because this is the case, turboprop aircraft aren't designed for high-speed operations, or operations involving high mach values. Most aircraft which fly high tend to do so because it is a place where they can operate most efficiently, and where they can go fast. Whereas the turboprop aircraft can't necessarily go that fast (the fastest production turboprop is the Piaggio Avanti, and it does 395 KTAS at altitude), such aircraft don't utilize swept wings, or other features of high altitude, high speed equipment.

Turboprops tend to operate on shorter legs than many turbojet aircraft, and often have no need to climb as high.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Less is more when it comes to flying on instruments. You'll want to avoid overcontrolling. Common mistake with new students. Trim is your friend. Keep things trimmed and you'll be less fatigued. Fly a few ILS' in VFR and see how little correction is required while under the hood. Often, students put too much correction in while course correcting. You should be using very slight pressures (NOT movements) in handling the yoke.

I'd advise getting a PC-based simulator. Anything inexpensive will do. No need for a fancy setup. This will help greatly in understanding things like timed turns, intersects, bearings, essentially all electronic navigation and associated computations. You can even find GPS simulators online. Learning to use avionics in the air can be expensive and time consuming.

Earning your instrument will make you a much better pilot even if you only fly VFR. As someone commented, definately file IFR as often as possible for trips in VFR. This will allow you to get comfortable with the procedural aspects invloed with IFR flight and hone those skills. Hand flying by yourself in IMC is tough enough for a new IFR pilot, so VFR "test runs" will pay off greatly.

Good luck. The IFR rating is the most rewarding. Believe it or not, the ATP test is a glorified instrument ride.

 

[PURPLEHAZE21]

Our 727's have VOR's and RMI's...that's it.

 

[no1pilot2000]

There was a time when pilots were getting jobs at the regional airlines to prepare themselves for jobs with SWA, AirTran, and other airlines. Regionals like Piedmont and Colgan fly turbo props vs. turbo jet aircraft. Considering the turbo props fly at a lower speed and altitude than regionals that fly RJ's, do the majors prefer pilots who get experience flying RJ's over turbo props? The majors are often looking for pilots with Turbine PIC TIME?

 

[Redtailer]

There was a time when pilots were getting jobs at the regional airlines to prepare themselves for jobs with SWA, AirTran, and other airlines. Regionals like Piedmont and Colgan fly turbo props vs. turbo jet aircraft. Considering the turbo props fly at a lower speed and altitude than regionals that fly RJ's, do the majors prefer pilots who get experience flying RJ's over turbo props? The majors are often looking for pilots with Turbine PIC TIME?

Don't over complicate the hiring process at the majors. Believe it or not it is a pretty simple formula. They look at total time, Turbine PIC, and total turbine. Not a whole lot else really. Each airline has it's own formula on what they want, but it is usually some combination of those.

It's all based upon when you apply. If the pool of candiates mostly have over 4000 hrs with 3000 turbine, then if you show up with 2000 hrs and 1000 turbine then you probably won't get called for an interview unless you have something that makes you stand out like an internal recommendation.

The competitive number fluctuates depending on the number of pilots in the pool and the amount of hiring being done. You may look 6 months later and 2000 hrs is competitive.

As far as whether or not it's an RJ I really don't think it matters as long as the turboprop wasn't a 19 seater or under. Then it seems to matter SOME, but not too much.

I say all of this, but this is just to get the interview. If you get the interview all of your time goes out the window. At that point you have the job provided you pass the interview even if you are going in with someone who has 747 time. You both will be on the same playing field and they will hire both of you if both of you pass and vice versa.

My personal opinion is to go with whichever one will give you the fastest upgrade time and best quality of life in the process. Just realize the majors haven't done any real hiring in years so there are a LOT of folks that will be ahead of you trying to get in the door that will put the competitive numbers very high.

 

[no1pilot2000]

I will be starting my training to get my instrument rating. I will be flying a Cessna 172 fully IFR equipped. In my time as a pilot, I will rarely fly above 6,000 feet (but it might happen). Any last words of wisdom before I begin this challenging training. BTW.... this is most likely be the last certification I get as a pilot. I decided not to take my training any further than Private and Instrument pilot. I may take a discovery flight in a multi-engine airplane to see what it's like.

Thanks to everyone for their helpful advice!!

 

[Redtailer]

I will be starting my training to get my instrument rating. I will be flying a Cessna 172 fully IFR equipped. In my time as a pilot, I will rarely fly above 6,000 feet (but it might happen). Any last words of wisdom before I begin this challenging training. BTW.... this is most likely be the last certification I get as a pilot. I decided not to take my training any further than Private and Instrument pilot. I may take a discovery flight in a multi-engine airplane to see what it's like.

Thanks to everyone for their helpful advice!!

If you can afford it then Multi training is wonderful. It is a very rewarding and fun thing to do, but the expense may not be worth it if you are not flying them regularly or doing it for a job. Make no mistake that twin flying is some of the most dangerous flying a low time pilot can do. If you are not proficient and not doing it on a regular basis then you need to go up with an instructor for a couple of hours to get proficient again. Notice I said proficient and not current, two different things. Having said how dangerous it is, I am comfortable going up with a newly minted Multi guy because I know he would be proficient opposed to someone who has had it for years and only flies 50 hours a year or so with no recent twin training. The latter is only accident waiting to happen.

Have fun with the instrument!! If you really want to use your money wisely then seriously look at the CFI path in which case you may do those XCountries sooner. I learned 10x more as a CFI than I ever did as a student. You don't have to be a career instructor, but having a couple of students once in a while is a good thing. You could just be the guy at the airport who only does flight reviews and such. It will make you a much stronger pilot. That means you need to do the commercial then the CFI. You can also do the CFII a week later. You won't regret it. Then you can think about the multi if you so desire.

 

[no1pilot2000]

I have considered becoming a CFI. I was told by other CFI's at the flight school that the job is fun. I have to take things one step at a time. I enjoy flying small aircraft. Sometimes I wish I were younger, I would have possibly pursued a professional piloting career. Being almost 46 years old, that's not in the cards for me.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

You can get a CFI and not use it. If you have a passion for the learning aspect and to further your knowledge and understanding of aviation, get the CFI. No need to live like a pauper and teach. Teach when its convenient as a supplement or not at all. Just be sure to renew it every 2 yrs or you lose all privileges.

 

[no1pilot2000]

I think it's a little too early in the game to consider a CFI rating. The CFI's that I have had are so crisp in their flying skills, it's amazing. I think CFI's are the underdogs of the aviation profession. Sometimes, I don't think they are given enought credit for their skills or hard work as aviators. I still have so much to learn before I consider becoming a CFI. Unlike some other aviation professionals, from what I have experienced, they seem to like instructing students. They really have a passion for it and enjoy it.