Anyone been to SimuFlite (DFW) recurrent?

[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.

 

[AA717driver]

Hang on guys! (In the gender-neutral sense, of course, English ) Let's put the "simma down" light on.

Kerosene Snorter covered all these bases very early on. Can a Citation be "safely" flown single pilot by a qualified and competent pilot? Absolutely.

Is it "safer" to have two pilots in said Citation? Absolutely.

Problem solved. Hey, I found this great barbeque place near Love Field the other day... TC

 

[Prof. ATP]

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?

Once your training is arranged you should be able to get a password and download Simuflite's manual for your airplane from their website. All of the maneuvers and systems are there, although I have found that a few of their instructors want things done a little differently. I have also found this very useful for a little studying while bored waiting for passengers...

Best of luck!

...and have fun -- it's an airplane!

 

[Kingairrick]

I'm at Simuflite DFW right now. you want me to check anything out for you? I'm here 'till Thursday.
AA717: Where's the place? Want some company? Went to Boi Na Brazas last night...I'm still fulllllllllllll.....

 

[JediNein]

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!

Getting back to the original question with a variation. An operator is debating on sending me to the PIC or SIC recurrent course at FSI.

What is the difference between the two? How about differences between the one-time trip versus the 'carte blanc' program? Does FSI care about times or do they just fill in the boxes?

Systems, limits, v-speeds, emergencies, and so on seem to be the ground school. Am I missing anything?

What is the sim training? I've heard something about the 'Delta Windshear' scenario, has FSI created any new scenarios recently? Is sim anything worse than what two flight instructors do to each other regularly when they have spare time in the sim (inverted ILS, gear & flap failure, 80 knot windshear + turbulence on max, GS failure 300' from DH)?

Thanks!
Jedi Nein