Anyone been to SimuFlite (DFW) recurrent?

[OState597]

Lookin for some help on this one...

I've been hired as a right-seat crewmember on a Citation II. My "captain" is typed in the aircraft obviously, but he doesn't meet insurance time for single-pilot certification yet. Thats where I come in....I'll be flying with him as a required two-man crew until he's finally got enough time to go single-pilot. My chief pilot wants me to go to training (either Flight Safety or SimuFlite) and do the SIC Recurrent course, which is half the price of the SIC Initial. My chief and I are flying the aircraft together for my practice (touch n go's etc) and he's taking me on alot of his trips, and of course I'm studying the manuals like crazy. My question is..am I gonna get my ass kicked in recurrent training since I never did an SIC initial??

I appreciate any help...thanks for your time!

 

[falconpilot]

I wouldn't think so.... Citation systems are simple, and the airplane flys like a 172. You'll do just fine.... Just know all the limitations, and emergency procedures.

 

[CapnVegetto]

I JUST got back from Citation II recurrent. falconpilot is right, CE-500 systems are simple. Study the manuals, know the systems, you'll be fine. Plus, you're doing an SIC course. They don't expect you to be able to build the airplane, especially just as a copilot. You'll be fine.

 

[2000flyer]

Since you already have some experience in the Citation, you'll have no problems. As said before, understand the systems and know the limitations. You'll more than likely be paired with a PIC doing a recurrent (NOTE: PIC and SIC recurrent ground is IDENTICAL!) Let your sim partner know your situation and talk about how each other likes to have things work in the cockpit and after the first 10 minutes in the sim you'll be helping each other out.

Don't sweat it. More important...HAVE FUN!

2000Flyer

 

[CapnVegetto]

Almost forgot.....be sure to stay at a hotel with a GYM. You will eat WAAAAY too much at the Simuflite cafeteria. It is REALLY GOOD AND REALLY CHEAP!! I always pig out way too much when I go there.

 

[sydeseet]

Make sure your CP has communicated your experience level to Simuflite before you go. They decide who qualifies for a recurrent and who needs a full blown initial. The time to discuss this is before you start your first day of class and your name is on the blue monitor in the hall. You'll see what I mean when you get there.

 

[G100driver]

Are you getting a type rating while going through recurrent? I did that for my Westwind type, although I must admit that I do not recommend it.

Definately the firehose technique. It can be done. I would just have the all the memory items and limitations down cold. Be sure that you are VERY comfortable with your flight director and auto-pilot as well. The are your best friends in the training environment. That was the toughest transition for me when I left the world of instruction for jets. Good luck.

 

[757BBJ_Capt]

Ostate, 1st let me say congrats on the new job. sounds like someone is giving you a break, and that is always a good thing. If you don't mind, let me share my observations with you about the place you are working.
I certainly mean no disrespect, but you are working for some "low rents". As best I can tell, econimics, not safety, is the priority where you work, and I say that for 2 reasons.

1) The is nothing safe, and I mean nothing at all, safe about flying a jet used to transport personell single pilot. No matter what excuses they give you over there, it's bottom of the barrel. As you fly with this "Captain", note a time when the work load is high for the both of you. Then, when you get on the ground, replay that in your mind, only this time, you are on hour 9 for the day, it's night, the Auto-pilot has quit working, you are getting rocked around pretty good, and the WX has gone just about as south as it can go. With all that in your mind, now imagine you are not there and he is flying single-pilot. Your thoughts?

2) They are sending you to a re-current even though you have not been to an initial because it is 1/2 the price of a SIC Initial. Not only is there going to be a lot that you will miss out on by not going to an initial, but it is called a re-current for a reason and it is called an initial for a reason. I have had applicants in for interviews and if one has Mgnt experience, I ask what they have done to save the company $ that they previously worked for. The ones that smile about cutting corners like sending guys to re-currents instead of initials get the boot. Why? Because it tells you the kind of person they are, and not only that, it just shows poor decision making and a wanton disregard for the safety of anyone that travels onboard the aircraft. Ego usually plays a big part in that.

I am surprised that some of the professionals on here have not brought any of this up. These jet operators are flying high performance equipment, so they are going to have bills. The fact that they cut corners in the one place that is most fundamental is beyond the scope of my thinking. I guess what I am trying to say is just be careful. I bet you are a smart guy, great stick, with a bright future in aviation ahead of you. Don't toss that out the window because you are afraid of losing what seems to be a good job at the time(read: Speak up even though you think you might be wrong if you see something you don't like) Maybe I am getting a little off topic, but I hate to see young guys with low time taken advantage of because they just do not know any better. I've been there myself!! Good luck to you, and let me know what part of the country you are in so if I hear of something a little more professional for you, I'll pass it along.

 

[Rick1128]

Make sure your CP has communicated your experience level to Simuflite before you go. They decide who qualifies for a recurrent and who needs a full blown initial. The time to discuss this is before you start your first day of class and your name is on the blue monitor in the hall. You'll see what I mean when you get there.

Unfortunately, Simuflite has a bad habit of doing this. Get you there and then hit you with a gotcha. If that happens, don't get too involved with the problem, prebrief your Chief Pilot and then when it happens call him and let him deal with it.

As for single pilot in a Citation, it is much easier to fly than a single pilot Metroliner even with an emergency. It sounds like a startup corporate operations that the owner still doesn't really have a handle on it yet. It is surprising how many start out this way and stay two pilot after a couple of single pilot trips.

 

[CapnVegetto]

They're pretty good, though. I went there a while back for LR-JET (25) initial with no time in type and very little jet time. (About 75 hours). Just study, prepare, and you'll be fine.

I do however, have to disagree with 757BBJ. There is nothing wrong with a properly qualified person flying a Citation single pilot. I have an uncle that recently retired from flying a CE-501 single pilot for the last 25 years. Same company for a quarter of a century. Before you start talking about cutting corners, they've done no such thing. Initial, recurrent every year for 25 straight years. Highest level of insurance coverage. No expense spared on maintenence. When he recently lost his medical and was forced to retire, they gave him a year of full salary as severence pay, (which was well above industry standard).

As a result, they got a great pilot, great guy, and he stayed at the same job for 25+ years. It's amazing what you can get when you treat your people right. But, 25 years of flying single pilot with no problems proves to me that it can be done. The Citation is slow, stable, and easy to fly. Slow approach speeds. Simple systems. Plenty of redundancy. It was designed as a single pilot airplane. Hell, I think it's a lot easier to deal with than a Kingair. There's less to do.

My .2 cents.

 

[Jump Pilot]

Aside from memory items and limitations, know your power settings. What's the setting for an ILS and non-precision approach? How about single engine?

Your SIC check will most likely be stall series (straight ahead, 20 flaps/20bank, straight ahead fully configured), unusual attitudes, then a non-precision approach and an ILS. One of the approaches will be single engine.

Best of luck!

 

[G100driver]

I believe that BBJ's point was low ball attitude of sending a guy to recurrent instead of intial. He was right on in his post. When I did it in the Westwind it was for a low rent car dealer .... suprise! Worked there for a year and moved on ... surprise.

As a far as single pilot goes, to each is own ... just some guys choose to own on the side of money instead of safety.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I gotta go with Vegetta and Rick here.

A slowtation is much less workload SP than your average Baron. I have dealt with engine failures in both as a single pilot in IFR. I will take the Citation anyday over a light twin in that situation.

I can see where BBJ is coming from though, his profile only shows swept wing airplanes.......a Citation is in a whole different class. Basically it is a jet powered light twin. I came out of a 73 and into the Citation with a lot of the same bias that BBJ shows. One sim session will show you that as long as the pilot has experience, the Citation is tame and docile even with everything failing in the sim. If it is your first jet, then that is a different story, but if you have a good bit of jet time, not a biggie.

Like they say, the Citation is the only jet in the world that needs power to decend!

 

[English]

I'm with KeroseneSnorter...the CJ is an unbelievably easy airplane to fly. Having an SIC in that airplane is a waste of time. It would be like having an SIC in a 172.

Some guys prefer to have one pilot, rather than two, for privacy concerns. They go places and do things they don't want many people to know about. Hence one pilot. Other owners are cheap and only want to pay one pilot. Go figure.

If a professional pilot is trained properly in an aircraft CERTIFIED for one pilot, there is no degraded level of safety.

 

[757BBJ_Capt]

If a professional pilot is trained properly in an aircraft CERTIFIED for one pilot, there is no degraded level of safety.

Are you suggesting there is the same amount of safety with one pilot as there is 2? English, I would ask that you say that out loud to yourself 3 or 4 times then come back and amend that statement. I think you might not be objective on this issue as it appers you fly these aircraft single pilot. Fine. but to say there is no degraded level of safety is foolish. Think about it. I have Z rated tires on my car, so it is certified to travel faster than 149 miles per hour. Do I go 149? No. Why? Because even though it is approved to do so, it's just not safe. If you are flying single pilot with just the boss on board and you pass out, and somehow the boss (non pilot) manages to land the airplane safely, do you ever think he would allow his airplane to be flown single pilot again? The answer is no, and we all know why. Are pilots able to fly single pilot? Yes. Should they? No! Lets not kid ourselves...........

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

BBJ,

Your arguments are based on medical factors, not aircraft complexity.

If you carry your position further, you are saying that a 172 or 152 should require two pilots. You did mention carring passengers so I would assume you feel that a Baron or 310 should need two pilots as well.

As far as complexity, a jet is much easier than a piston twin if things begin to come apart. Sure you have the extra speed, size and system complexity, but for an experienced pilot, jets are much easier. Pop a motor on a 75 right after liftoff...and you stand on a rudder and continue the climb, do the same in a piston twin and you are a-holes and elbows to even get it to a configuration that it will fly in.

The SP issue really comes down to the medical factors, is the guy in back comfortable with only one pilot up front......and that is a personal opinion more than an operational safety factor. If pilots were regulary grabbing their chest and falling over, then it would be more of an issue.

There are limits for the SP operated jets, more stringent O2 rules and max altitudes when running solo as well as the additional training and experience required to get the SP sign off. I personally feel that the FAA SP mins should require more jet time than it does, but the insurance companies ultimatly control that, and they do ensure that there are no low timers SP. Every now and then you see a rich owner operator that pays massive premiums to run SP with fairly low time, but even then he has more time than your average Junior RJ Captian does now.

You have to remember we are talking about an airplane that mearly approximates a jets performance, and not a real jet. There is no real coffin corner to speak of and no swept wing aerodynamic qualities to deal with, and limited weight. (under 16000 pounds in all cases)

As an FAA guy said to me once, "Every professional pilot should be issued his own personal Citation to commute to work in."

The age of the personal jet is nearly upon us, Mustang, Eclipse and the rest are just the beginning. Give it another 20 or 30 years and I doubt that you will find a piston powered airplane rolling off the assembly lines. The 172 of the day will be turboprop, and the Bonanza of the day will be jet.

By that time automation will probably have done away with the second guy in the airline stuff too. Pilot and a Dog.......the dog being there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything! We have already lost the navigator, radio operator, and engineer, the second pilot is next on the chopping block.

Man...I am depressing myself now....hope they at least keep the F/A's!!!!! Have to have somebody to talk to!

 

[757BBJ_Capt]

KeroseneSnorter,

You are missing the point. Who cares what factor(s) my agruments are based on? Medical, mechanical, ect. It does not change the fact that having 2 pilots instead of 1 is much safer in ANY AIRPLANE! Is flying a 172, be58, or C310 safer with 2 pilots rather than 1, the answer is yes! Is it reasonable to have a 2 crew 172, no, of course not. When transporting people, especially executives of corporations, in jet aircraft, there should always be 2 pilots. Having an airplane crash with someone like that on board has much farther reaching implications than you might imagine. Let the CEO of a S&P or Dow Jones company perish in an aviation accident, whether there are 2 pilots or 1, and see what happens on the stock exchange the next day. It won't be pretty.

You mentioned the loss of an engine. Losing an engine in a jet aircraft is typically a non event. For that matter, most things that go wrong mechanically are not going to kill you if immediate action is not taken. It the environment in which you are in at the time of the failure that causes the problems, then that situation is compounded by the things that happen next. Lose an engine, no problem. Lose an engine, performing the memory items, getting the check list, running it, seeing if you have lost anything, navigating, talking on the radio, ect, all while still having to fly the airplane is where the trouble gets started. It's the domino effect of the incident that causes the problems, and the chances of that happening can be reduced if you have 2 people instead of just 1. Getting loaded up is what will get you killed. Not to mention, you'll have 2 different people with 2 possible different solutions to the problem. It's easy to over look something and there is a chance the other person might not. It's silly to try to justify 1 pilot being just as safe as 2.

You also mentioned the guy in the back's comfort level. Most of the time he IS comfortable with just 1 pilot for 2 reasons.

1) Some pilot tries to look like a hero by explaining the positive economic factors of having just 1 pilot. You can pay me now, or you can pay me later, BUT I'M GONNA GET MY MONEY!

2) He just does not know any better. He pays that pilot to make decisions and he assumes that pilot is a professional and would do the right thing, as that is his/her job. The guy in the back cares about the business of the company, not the day to day operation of the aircraft, and rightfully so; like I said, he is paying someone else to worry about that. He is assuming things are as they should be, when actually they are not. Like I said in an earlier post, let the pilot pass out and I can assure you the plane will never again be flown single pilot.

Many times you have an operation where the CP has issues with ego and self security. Wont send another guy to school so the operation relies on the him. He wont let the F/O fly so the boss does not see someone else is just as capable as he is when it comes to flying. Ego. These types are stick hogs because they can be, and if they were to go somewhere else with more than 1 pilot and he was not in charge, lots of things would change. I've seen it 1000 times. I hired a 2.5K hour guy about a year ago and sent him to GV school right away. He was 24 at the time. I made it clear from day 1 that is was his choice to get typed or not while he was down there. I told him that I would wait until he had time in the airplane if I were in his situation, and he did just that. SIC initial kicked his rear end, but he made it through. Went back in 6 months after having 175 hours in type and smoked the type ride. He thanked me later and told me the reason he did not get typed is because he was just not ready(he had been flying co-pilot on an Encore). I had put it in writing before he went to school that he had a full service contract from FSI that was his to keep. If we fired him or if he quit, he was free to go down to FSI and get his type, guarenteed, so in going to initial he knew that he was going to get typed regardless if he did it then or later. We pay him well above industry standard and he knows that we gave him a break and making stupid choices will be a way for him to lose this job. I want the guys working here to know that it will hurt if they get fired or leave, so we pay them well, treat them even better, flood them with perks, let them have as much time off as they need, and tell them they can go to a training event as much as they want. It's probably the best job in aviation, but you'll never hear about it because the guys here don't talk about it because they dont want anyone else to know how good they got it. We've never had a person quit for reasons other than to retire or medical. Nobody has ever given us a reason to fire them. I'm 33 and I plan to retire here. I tell you all those things because I want to stress to the poor kid that 1st wrote in to expect it to get nothing but better from here on out in terms of jobs. HIs not going to an initial is disgusting. Period. And so sticking him in there with a pilot of limited experience (does not meet some requirement) is even worse. One little accident, and the lawyers are going to have a field day counting their contingency fee.

One last thing. Taking what some FAA guy told you is just that, some guy talking. Just because they work for the FAA does not mean what they say is what it is. The FAA has done their fare share of stupid things, and I've met FAA inspectors that have no business being in the job they are in. Ask Beechcraft who told them they can't pressurize a A90 King air with Bleed air or who told them they can't build a corperate tProp out of composite materials safely. I've also met some top notch FAA guys that really know their stuff. Take what anyone tells you and find out for youself its accuracy. In aviation, people will tell you things just to hear themselves talk, show you things just to show you how good they are, and do things just to show you how stupid they are.

BBJ,

Your arguments are based on medical factors, not aircraft complexity.

If you carry your position further, you are saying that a 172 or 152 should require two pilots. You did mention carring passengers so I would assume you feel that a Baron or 310 should need two pilots as well.

As far as complexity, a jet is much easier than a piston twin if things begin to come apart. Sure you have the extra speed, size and system complexity, but for an experienced pilot, jets are much easier. Pop a motor on a 75 right after liftoff...and you stand on a rudder and continue the climb, do the same in a piston twin and you are a-holes and elbows to even get it to a configuration that it will fly in.

The SP issue really comes down to the medical factors, is the guy in back comfortable with only one pilot up front......and that is a personal opinion more than an operational safety factor. If pilots were regulary grabbing their chest and falling over, then it would be more of an issue.

There are limits for the SP operated jets, more stringent O2 rules and max altitudes when running solo as well as the additional training and experience required to get the SP sign off. I personally feel that the FAA SP mins should require more jet time than it does, but the insurance companies ultimatly control that, and they do ensure that there are no low timers SP. Every now and then you see a rich owner operator that pays massive premiums to run SP with fairly low time, but even then he has more time than your average Junior RJ Captian does now.

You have to remember we are talking about an airplane that mearly approximates a jets performance, and not a real jet. There is no real coffin corner to speak of and no swept wing aerodynamic qualities to deal with, and limited weight. (under 16000 pounds in all cases)

As an FAA guy said to me once, "Every professional pilot should be issued his own personal Citation to commute to work in."

The age of the personal jet is nearly upon us, Mustang, Eclipse and the rest are just the beginning. Give it another 20 or 30 years and I doubt that you will find a piston powered airplane rolling off the assembly lines. The 172 of the day will be turboprop, and the Bonanza of the day will be jet.

By that time automation will probably have done away with the second guy in the airline stuff too. Pilot and a Dog.......the dog being there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything! We have already lost the navigator, radio operator, and engineer, the second pilot is next on the chopping block.

Man...I am depressing myself now....hope they at least keep the F/A's!!!!! Have to have somebody to talk to!

 

[vortex]

KeroseneSnorter,

We pay him well above industry standard and he knows that we gave him a break and making stupid choices will be a way for him to lose this job. I want the guys working here to know that it will hurt if they get fired or leave, so we pay them well, treat them even better, flood them with perks, let them have as much time off as they need, and tell them they can go to a training event as much as they want. It's probably the best job in aviation, but you'll never hear about it because the guys here don't talk about it because they dont want anyone else to know how good they got it. We've never had a person quit for reasons other than to retire or medical. Nobody has ever given us a reason to fire them. I'm 33 and I plan to retire here.

​

Let me be first to ask if you are hiring????!!!!?????​

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

One last thing. Taking what some FAA guy told you is just that, some guy talking. Just because they work for the FAA does not mean what they say is what it is. The FAA has done their fare share of stupid things, and I've met FAA inspectors that have no business being in the job they are in. Ask Beechcraft who told them they can't pressurize a A90 King air with Bleed air or who told them they can't build a corperate tProp out of composite materials safely. I've also met some top notch FAA guys that really know their stuff. Take what anyone tells you and find out for youself its accuracy. In aviation, people will tell you things just to hear themselves talk, show you things just to show you how good they are, and do things just to show you how stupid they are.

​

Humor.....I see it is a difficult concept for you. I bet you are a bundle of laughs on a trip.(ie. the Citation to commute to work in)

I responded due to your remark about there being "Nothing at all, I mean nothing at all safe about operating a jet transporting personnel single pilot."

Some owners are too cheap to go with 2, others like to ride up front, who knows why some operate sp ops. Agreed that the kid should be sent to initial and that he probably is working for a bottom feeder. That is not my beef with your post.

The point is if the airplanes are certified single pilot, the pilots are certified single pilot, The pilot attends recurrent, the aircraft is well maintained, and the owner wants it flown SP, Why do you give a fuzzy rats rear what some guy does with his airplane?

Don't tell me you are one of those guys that thinks flying that 75 around makes you an aviation god and everyone should think like you do.

Have an opinion sure, but you have taken it too far with your "god like" statement above about nothing being safe about it. Sounds like you may be a pilot from MS land and have let all that silicon and money go to your head.

I bet you get mad when your neighbor leaves his garage door open at night too huh? Can't stand when someone has a different opinion than you about anything.

It's some rich guys airplane, he wants it flown single pilot, it's legal, and if he doesn't mind it...why do you?​

 

[English]

Are you suggesting there is the same amount of safety with one pilot as there is 2? English, I would ask that you say that out loud to yourself 3 or 4 times then come back and amend that statement....

Well, I did it. I also clicked my heels together three times. I opened my eyes and I still believed exactly what I wrote. So, no matter how much you protest and insist we must change our way of thinking to fit yours, well - we won't.