Getting a Type Rating

[bobbysamd]

Age discrimination

To say that because you applied for six years straight with no response equals age discrimination is again flawed reasoning.

Not in the least. I am amazed at how people fail to read posts word for word.

I wrote, very specifically, that I applied to many of the same commuters as did my Riddle colleagues. I also wrote that my Riddle colleagues and I had essentially the same quals, i.e. four-year degree and enough time to meet the mins, gained solely through flight instructing. They had nothing different than me that would have given them an advantage, e.g., turbine time or 135 time - except for age. They got the interviews and jobs. I did not. In fact, if my quals were arrayed next to theirs you would not see much difference, except that I had more total time, perhaps my ATP, and my type. The difference is - age.

You had opined that maybe some of these places were not hiring during the six years I applied to them. Not so. Horizon hired. G-P Express hired. Scenic hired. COEX hired, too. I am 99.999% sure that one other one I did not mention earlier, Stateswest in Phoenix, hired. I sent them plenty of stuff and would deliver materials to it personally when I was in Phoenix.

You had written that Eagle has hired pilots in their late 40s. How many of them were career changers like me with only flight instructing experience? I would submit few or none. No one disputes that airlines hire 40+ pilots who are extremely well-qualified and experienced, i.e. ex-military, corporate and others who have large amounts of 135/121 and turbine time. I am comparing myself to my peer group, who, again, had four-year degrees and flight instructing experience only and were as much as fifteen (15) years younger than me
(40 - 15 = 25).

I know of other pilots who were not hired because of age discrimination. I have a friend who now flies single-pilot Caravan 135 in New Mexico. His birthday is within a few days of mine. He told me that he found out that he was flat-out rejected because of age. I have no doubts about the veracity of what he was told.

Most of your posts seem to revolve around how you missed out on your life's dream because of age discrimination. I think that's how this thread morphed...

No, it morphed because someone saw my orginal comments on my Citation type and Eagle sim ride. He used it as an excuse to attack me on age discrmination, which was completely irrelevant to the discussion. I notice that this person's post is gone now.

 

[slinky]

I was a tacamo driver and most of my friends trained in Enid on the T-1. Once you complete your training there you will have had an "aircraft commander check" sorta like the navy NATOPS check in the T-1. Go take that over to OKC and they will stick the beech type on your ticket using the 61.73.d rules

 

[slinky]

The same rules apply when you get your A/C desig in the 135 you will get the 707/720 type on your ticket also. simple. no cost. no worries. dont even consider paying for this it will be free soon enough.

slinky

 

[bobbysamd]

Turbine time

The main reason I am asking is because in a year I will be going through training in the Air Guard to fly KC135s. During that time I will be getting a little over a hundred hours in a T-1 (Be400). Also stepping out of flight school I will have over 1100hrs TT and at least 300 turbine. I know thats still squat to most places, but would 100hrs in a T1 with a Be400 type mean anything?

300 of turbine these days may not be quite enough to be really competitive, but your military flying background could very well overcome this slight disadvantage. Once you get into the 135s and build some hours in them you will be competitive.

I don't see where it would be worth it for you to pursue another type rating. The fact that you will have obtained one already will prove that you can be typed. Your 100 hours will bolster it. You will have accomplished your goals and objectives for getting a type rating with the your BE-400 type. Best thing, it will have been done on someone else's nickel.

Given your scenario of getting some dough-loaded individual hiring you to fly his Citation and paying for your training, as the others mentioned, hopefully he also will have enough dough to afford your insurance, if you can be insured at all.

Finally, I recommend Mike Pappas for your Citation type. I got mine with him in 1990 and had a great time. Cost back then was about $3K; undoubtedly it's gone up since then.

Hope all this has been helpful. Good luck with your training and plans.

 

[banned username 2]

I would think about 40 million dollars would be sufficient.

All of our aircraft carry $150 Million of insurance (liability)

 

[Kingairrick]

My insurance bill for me, single pilot in the BE 300, with 50 Mil Liability is 58 grand per year. 4000 + flight time and FSI Pro Card.

 

[banned username 2]

My insurance bill for me, single pilot in the BE 300, with 50 Mil Liability is 58 grand per year. 4000 + flight time and FSI Pro Card.

Holy Crap Batman! Are they even paying you that much in salary???

 

[Kingairrick]

No

 

[Timebuilder]

Sheesh.

And I thought that 30k per year for Navajo insurance was bad.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

so how much longer before the insurance companies kill off the aviation industry?
when is america going to get smart and clean up the tort laws so that one moron that does something stupid and kills himself because of no fault of anyone else his family can't sue anyone that ever knew this clown?

 

[bobbysamd]

Aviation tort reform

A step in that direction was supposed to be the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. This Act contained a statute of repose, which barred product liability lawsuits against manfacturers of aircraft which were beyond a certain age. Apparently the GARA has shifted the focus of lawsuits to other entities, according to this article I just found:

GARA has had the effect of creating greater liability exposure for everyone
in the aviation industry except those established manufacturers that lobbied
for its protection. Let's look at some specific examples.

Pilots...

The pilot and the "operator" for whom he works have always been the "target
defendants" in general aviation litigation. However, the other prime suspect
has traditionally been the manufacturer. Now the pilot is the prime target
because the manufacturer has immunity.

The pilot who is injured in an accident or his estate, if he did not
survive, cannot sue the possibly negligent operator (company) who employed
him. The pilot is usually an "employee" who under the laws of most states,
cannot sue his employer. The pilot or estate's only recourse is be to
collect the meager workers' compensation benefits paid by the employer's
workers compensation insurer. Now recognize that GARA ends the pilot's
ability to sue the manufacturer that might have designed an aircraft with a
defect that ultimately injured or killed him. The injured pilot or the
pilot's surviving spouse must look to other "suspects" in the aviation
industry for compensation if the crash is not solely due to pilot error and
has resulted in serious injury or death.

Of course, in such an event there may be insufficient insurance to
compensate the victims of a typical general aviation crash. Even small
aircraft accidents often involve two or more people, many of who are high
wage earners. With small, privately-owned general aviation aircraft, the
"shallow-pocket" dilemma is even greater. Many aircraft owners obtain
insurance with "seat limitations" of $100,000 or $200,000. This means that
passengers who die or are seriously injured in the crash may only recover
$100,000 or $200,000 from the insurance company because of the accident. The
practical effect of limited insurance coverage is that passengers and pilots
may consider chasing the assets of the insured who caused or contributed to
the crash. Alternatively, they often look to other insured suspects for
compensation in serious air crash accidents.

...Mechanics And Overhaulers...

Mechanics, maintenance facilities, FBOs and overhaulers are suffering a
greater number of lawsuits. If a plaintiff cannot allege a product defect
against a manufacturer, the next logical focus is whether the product was
improperly maintained or overhauled. Many of these businesses and
professionals must decide to buy more insurance to cover their increased
risk. The cost will be passed onto owners and pilots.

...Component Part Manufacturers...

Parts manufacturers are the new deep pockets in general aviation product
liability litigation. In a typical general aviation aircraft the various
component parts have a short service life. They must be replaced, redesigned
or overhauled before 18 years have elapsed and the component part
manufacturers may have to put their product at risk more than once in that
18-year period. Thus, it should come as no surprise to general aviation
aircraft owners that the cost of replacement parts has skyrocketed.

...Aircraft Owners...

Owners, even if they are not acting as the pilot of the aircraft, may face
additional lawsuits. Plaintiffs will look for some viable defendant with
insurance or assets to pay for their injuries. In some states, passive
aircraft owners (who do not pilot or maintain their aircraft) have minimal
liability exposure. In other states owners are vicariously liable for the
wrongdoing of the pilot at the controls and even the maintenance
professional who worked on their aircraft. The best protection for the owner
is more insurance. (See my article, "Can Aircraft Owners Avoid Personal
Liability for Air Crashes?")

...Dealers, Distributors And Factory-Authorized Service Facilities...

These parties are the manufacturers' partners, but they face substantial
redirected exposure. GARA provides only immunity for manufacturers. Nothing
in the statute protects dealers, distributors or factory-authorized service
facilities. Under the product liability laws of most states, every entity in
the distribution chain of a defective product has product liability
exposure. Thus, the manufacturer, distributor and retailer can often be held
liable for a defective product. That is why a general retailer such as
Sears, for example, is sued when they unknowingly sell a defective lawn
mower or other product that causes injury.

Interesting reading.