Scenic Airlines

[mrkopaj]

...the air conditioning blew from the back of the cabin forward, guaranteeing that the pilots caught every flavorful aroma...

...combined with the essence of Tiger Balm.

 

[Ill Mitch]

Technicolor Yawns always smelled sweeter to me for some reason in the -6 as opposed to a 207. Maybe it was the mix with the Jet-A fumes that did it.

One downside of YR's -6's was that the air conditioning blew from the back of the cabin forward, guaranteeing that the pilots caught every flavorful aroma.

In retrospect, it was kind of a dumb question. I flew the Twotter for meat bombs and I remember all the wonderful oderific smells that would come forward when the jump door was opened. Yum.

 

[BossHogg]

The Otter is the perfect plane to perfect your flying skills.
Best of luck.

You are crazy.

 

[FlyWithSean]

The Otter will definitley perfect your crosswind landing ability!

 

[BossHogg]

The Otter will definitley perfect your crosswind landing ability!

That's about all it will do for you.

 

[mynameisjim]

For those of you with some experience at Scenic, do they consider sim time when looking at hiring minimums?

I've got about 425 total flight time, about 200 hours level d sim time.

 

[FlyWithSean]

I don't have a clue how they pick and choose who to interview

Not to quote you or anything but......

The effort taken to hand deliver a resume to the North Vegas airport, and a good looking resume with all the pertinent information on it, far outweighs the online app. I have gotten many friends jobs at Scenic and not one filled out the online app. If you want to look the same on paper fill out the online app. I have been there when they print them up and you are much better off walking in your resume!

 

[Jim]

Sean -
There is a difference between one of the current pilots handing in a friend's resume and someone without any connections getting an interview. Both Johns (CP and Training) have told me they like the online application and want it submitted online. When they get a resume, they than go to see if there is also an online application completed too.

Mynameisjim -
I do not believe they will count the sim time. It is not flight time.

BossHogg -
I disagree, the Otter will teach you a heck of a lot. Don't understimate the aircraft. The Otter can be quit an handful in crosswinds as previously mentioned. Having also flown more advanced aircraft with FMS and all the other bells and whistles, I will say hand flying an Otter into ELY on a VOR/DME (including arc) to minimums with 20 to 30 knots of crosswind and an icy runway was a lot more difficult. I did it more than a few times last winter. Also did more than a few ILS to mins with nasty crosswinds at GCN last winter. FMS and flight directors can make competent instrument pilots out of anyone - hand flying raw data builds skill. Plus turbine PIC is turbine PIC.

Kawasumi_Kichou -
The a/c and fan might blow from the rear of the cabin, but the vent windows in the cockpit can make a pwerful breeze that will blow all smells back into the cabin where they belong. My main worry is the pax in 1a or 1b will lean forward, miss their bag and hit my flight bag.......

 

[Kawasumi_Kichou]

Ah, so that's the technique. Never once did I try opening any cockpit windows when we had self-loading cargo on board. And yes, I too have had the wonderful experience of cleaning up a toxic spill (never knew a little girl could puke so much) in 1A...

 

[BossHogg]

BossHogg -
I disagree, the Otter will teach you a heck of a lot. Don't understimate the aircraft. The Otter can be quit an handful in crosswinds as previously mentioned. Having also flown more advanced aircraft with FMS and all the other bells and whistles, I will say hand flying an Otter into ELY on a VOR/DME (including arc) to minimums with 20 to 30 knots of crosswind and an icy runway was a lot more difficult. I did it more than a few times last winter. Also did more than a few ILS to mins with nasty crosswinds at GCN last winter. FMS and flight directors can make competent instrument pilots out of anyone - hand flying raw data builds skill. Plus turbine PIC is turbine PIC.
.......

Uh ok sir. However, I do recall that the approach speed is something like 65 knots (it has been a while so please correct me if I am wrong). Hardly the speeds to perfect your flying abilities don't you think?

 

[Flywithmike]

Uh ok sir. However, I do recall that the approach speed is something like 65 knots (it has been a while so please correct me if I am wrong). Hardly the speeds to perfect your flying abilities don't you think?

Make that 79 knots for Vref with a full load. The plane will help perfect your crosswind abilities, but I have to say that as far as shooting an approach in the Otter at 90-110Kts, tends to be a whole lot easier than shooting them at 160+Kts. (with or without a flight director) in other aircraft.

The toughest transition for me was the speed difference. The Otter will give you all the time in the world to set up and shoot the approach.

 

[FlyWithSean]

I have to agree with Mike, the Otter is great for learning, but when tower is telling the single engine plane behind you to sidestep to the parrallel runway because you are going too slow.....well what more can you say.

65 is a full flap landing speed BossHogg we never landed with full flaps, so we were at the blistering speed of 75-59 KIAS

I will agree on one thing with Jim though. Flying the DME/ARC at night in the ice into Ely, NV getting the s#!t kicked out of you does suck!

 

[Caveman]

Does Scenic still requre new hires to sign a training contract? A couple of years ago it was something like $7500 for 1 year prorated monthly.

 

[Jim]

Cavemen -
Yes, there is a training contract for both FOs and Captains. I do not know the amounts.

BossHogg -
Yup the Otter is slow as a snail, but that just means the winds blow you around more. While the Otter is really stable and some think shooting an approach so slowly is easy, in some (not all) aspects I think it is actually harder. At faster speeds your needles move faster. The effects of wind, control imputs, etc are easier to see and it is much easier to keep the needles centered. With the Otter, you have to be patient. Put in a correction and than wait to see the results. No instant gratification like you get at 160 knots when the needle quickly starts moving in response to your correction.

I'm not claiming the Otter is hard to fly, just like every aircraft it has its unique challenges. It also has its own ways of making you a better, more skillfull pilot. I've flown both the fast modern glass stuff and the slow steam gauge stuff. It all contributes to your overall abilities as a pilot.

 

[BossHogg]

BossHogg -
While the Otter is really stable and some think shooting an approach so slowly is easy, in some (not all) aspects I think it is actually harder.

I'm not claiming the Otter is hard to fly, just like every aircraft it has its unique challenges. It also has its own ways of making you a better, more skillfull pilot. I've flown both the fast modern glass stuff and the slow steam gauge stuff.

Jim, how much time do you have in the P180 and the CE500? The reason I ask is because, if you have flown something a little more complex/fast and then afterwards flew this airplane, one might wonder how this would be of benefit to you. I'm certain most people would agree that it is a regression in perfecting flying abilities. You might as well fly around in a 172. The Twin Otter is slow, not even complex, and drives everybody crazy when you are behind one on approach. Some outfit used to fly them in and out of LAX many years ago and it was a nightmare. I have a few hundred hours or so in it and I can easily say that was one of the most awkard airplanes I have ever flown as far as the layout was concerned (maybe they are better now but I doubt it). I remember that a crosswind landing/rollout required a bit of juggling on the tiller and ailerons and differential power (basically you needed three hands to do all that). But everything else was a piece of cake. I'm sure most people do not consider the Twin Otter a challenging airplane even when you bring it into a relatively small strip. If I can recall, we could land that thing around 500 feet in calm winds. Maybe a 172 is a bad comparison... try a Piper Cub. But then again, a Piper Cub is more responsive.

 

[JRSLim]

Uh ok sir. However, I do recall that the approach speed is something like 65 knots (it has been a while so please correct me if I am wrong). Hardly the speeds to perfect your flying abilities don't you think?

Sounds super easy. I guess they should be making me a captain in no time with all my experience (about 640 hours in aircraft with aproach speeds of something like 65 knots)!

 

[Irish Pilot]

Jim, how much time do you have in the P180 and the CE500? The reason I ask is because, if you have flown something a little more complex/fast and then afterwards flew this airplane, one might wonder how this would be of benefit to you. I'm certain most people would agree that it is a regression in perfecting flying abilities. You might as well fly around in a 172. The Twin Otter is slow, not even complex, and drives everybody crazy when you are behind one on approach. Some outfit used to fly them in and out of LAX many years ago and it was a nightmare. I have a few hundred hours or so in it and I can easily say that was one of the most awkard airplanes I have ever flown as far as the layout was concerned (maybe they are better now but I doubt it). I remember that a crosswind landing/rollout required a bit of juggling on the tiller and ailerons and differential power (basically you needed three hands to do all that). But everything else was a piece of cake. I'm sure most people do not consider the Twin Otter a challenging airplane even when you bring it into a relatively small strip. If I can recall, we could land that thing around 500 feet in calm winds. Maybe a 172 is a bad comparison... try a Piper Cub. But then again, a Piper Cub is more responsive.

You must be really bored to be on here this much competing against the DHC-6. Its a 19 passenger turboprop that spends most of its time below 12ooo and cruises as well as lands at fairly slow airspeeds. Do you feel better? I have flown with guys (like and including Jim) that tell me that not only is the Otter the most fun aircraft they have flown but also can be one of the most challenging...thats good enough for me. Its fun and its challenging in its own ways. Guys coming out of flying the Otter have been very successful in the industry as well (due to many factors obviously)

This aint a competition Boss, let it go. Dont be that 10%.

 

[Kawasumi_Kichou]

Don't know 'bout anyone else, but I couldn't get consistently good landings in the Tw'Otter. Even the DO at the time said anyone that claimed three good landings in a row in the Otter was lying.

One of the captains I flew with used to ask as a part of the landing brief for the F/O's legs, "Squeaker or greaser?"

I thought it was a good, fun, hands-on kind of flying machine. Miss the beasts.

 

[Jim]

Jim, how much time do you have in the P180 and the CE500? The reason I ask is because, if you have flown something a little more complex/fast and then afterwards flew this airplane, one might wonder how this would be of benefit to you. I'm certain most people would agree that it is a regression in perfecting flying abilities. You might as well fly around in a 172. The Twin Otter is slow, not even complex, and drives everybody crazy when you are behind one on approach. Some outfit used to fly them in and out of LAX many years ago and it was a nightmare. I have a few hundred hours or so in it and I can easily say that was one of the most awkard airplanes I have ever flown as far as the layout was concerned (maybe they are better now but I doubt it). I remember that a crosswind landing/rollout required a bit of juggling on the tiller and ailerons and differential power (basically you needed three hands to do all that). But everything else was a piece of cake. I'm sure most people do not consider the Twin Otter a challenging airplane even when you bring it into a relatively small strip. If I can recall, we could land that thing around 500 feet in calm winds. Maybe a 172 is a bad comparison... try a Piper Cub. But then again, a Piper Cub is more responsive.

All together I have about 750 hours in non-Otter turboprops and jets. This does not include my time as an FE in the DC-10 or as a Naval Flight Officer (navigator) in the Navy. I got this time between my stints at Scenic flying the Otter. So I too have flown complex/fast planes and than returned to the Otter.

That the Otter slows down traffic to an airport is irrelevant to whether the Otter improves your flying skills or not.

The point I'm making is that every plane is unique and every plane can improve your skills in some area. The Otter is a stick and rudder plane that will definitely improve your crosswind landing skills. I see this every day at the Grand Canyon where landings at the Otter's demonstrated crosswind limits and wind shear are normal. Every pilot I've ever talked to that has significant Otter time agrees with this comment.

Instrument flying in an Otter will give you a lot better scan than instument flying in an aircraft with flight directors, FMS, autopilot and/or glass. You are hand flying the aircraft down low in the clouds for the entire flight. Every little windshift, updraft, etc. results in an altitude or course deviation and requires a correction. The autopilot is doing it for you. Instrument flying is 1.5 to 2 hours of scanning and correcting versus letting the autopilot do it for 1.3 to 1.8 hours while you hand fly the takeoff and landing.

I have seen many "jet" pilots that t/o, climb a couple of thousand feet, turn on the autopilot and than keep it on until DH on the ILS. At that time they call "field in sight. landing" and click the autopilot off. They've hand flown the aircraft a grand total of maybe 10 minutes max the entire flight with the FMS doing all the navigating. (I've been guilty of doing this too because it was smoother and more comfortable for my passengers.) How much is this building my pilot skills? I'd say hand flying the Otter from takeoff to landing including the departure, cruise, arrival and approach while navigating off raw data round dials without the benefit of a FMS or flight director does a lot more to build my instrument skills.

On the other hand, the Otter will not teach you about when to use or not use the automation, planning decents, step climbing for fuel, speed control, etc. Also you do not need to think as far ahead of the Otter as you do a Piaggio or jet. These are skill sets that require time in faster, more complex aircraft.

Again, different aircraft, different skills, all combine to produce a better pilot.

As Irish Pilot said, flying the Otter and Grand Canyon is just plain fun. There are many pilots at many major airlines who got their start flying the Twin Otter at Scenic. I have run into a bunch while jumpseating and at Hawaiian. Almost all spends some time reminiscing about the Otter, saying how fun it was to fly and what a great learning platform it was. Former Scenic pilots industry wide have nothing but praise about canyon flying and the Twin Otter.

You obviously think flying the Otter is useless and a waste of time. I think it is a valuable skill builder for the lower time pilots and a good basic stick & rudder/instrument skill refresher for higher time pilots. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Flywithmike]

Don't know 'bout anyone else, but I couldn't get consistently good landings in the Tw'Otter. Even the DO at the time said anyone that claimed three good landings in a row in the Otter was lying.

I guess you can call me a liar, but in the past I've easily gone for over a week without a bad landing in the Otter. I suppose a good landing is very subjective, but if you can't get three good landings in a row in any aircraft you fly professionally every day, then something is wrong with the technique being used.

Three absolutely perfect landings on the other hand is a different story altogether.

 

[FlyWithSean]

Like the Seminole or Duchess is a great introductory aircraft for multi-engine flying, the Otter is a EXCELLENT stepping stone for turbine aircraft. Training is excellent as well.

 

[AftCG182]

There's another avenue worth exploring. Scenic also has a few BE-1900's. Myself and a guy from my training class are up here at FlightSafety (LGA) for a couple of weeks for the BE-1900 Initial ground school. After completing the DHC-6-300 training you can bid for a 1900 slot. Upgrade time is a little longer in the 1900, but based on your long term goals it might just be a good move.

Side note: The staff (instructors, admin, etc...) up here at the FlightSafety facility is top notch. Great people, great facilities. While here, be sure to walk across the street and check out the Marine Air Terminal.

 

[ILStoMinimums]

Don't know 'bout anyone else, but I couldn't get consistently good landings in the Tw'Otter. Even the DO at the time said anyone that claimed three good landings in a row in the Otter was lying.

One of the captains I flew with used to ask as a part of the landing brief for the F/O's legs, "Squeaker or greaser?"

I thought it was a good, fun, hands-on kind of flying machine. Miss the beasts.

I have no idea how you fly the Otter and can't get a greaser 3 X in a row? The Otter has to be one of the easiest airplanes built in which you can continuosly make beautiful landings not only 3 X in a row, but 9 out of 10 landings! I'm sure all the other Otter guys can back me up.

 

[Flywithmike]

I agree 100%, the Otter is ridiculously easy to land in relatively calm winds.

 

[Kawasumi_Kichou]

Calm winds? What is this calm winds you speak of?

 

[Flywithmike]

Calm winds? What is this calm winds you speak of?

You know how Vegas gets March-May, anything less than 20kts IS calm winds!

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Most regional pilots get paid only for flight time. Historically, about 1/2 of a Scenic pilot's pay comes from ground time (more in the winter, less in the summer - it averages out to a little over 50% for a year). So the equivalent hourly rate for comparison to other 19 seat turboprop 121 airlines is $20.25/hr. If you go to http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/ , you will find that it is a competative payrate.

Don't most regionals have a duty rig and minimum pay guarantee?

We get for 1:2, 3.75 min daily pay even if we only work 2 hours, and straight time for any duty in excess of 12 hours as long as it was originaly scheduled to exceed 12 hours. I know other carriers have even better rules.

Perhaps it's been a while since Jim flew for a regional or am I missing somethign?

 

[DHCaptain]

So the only way to apply is via the on-line app?

Can't just fly out to Vegas and drop off a resume?

I'm coming up on 600TT and 110 multi.

Thanks.

Nowadays, I've heard that Scenic accepts no hand-delivered, faxed, or mailed résumés--only on-line applications. If you know someone who works there, mention it on your on-line application (there's space for that), and it will carry the same weight as if you had hand-delivered it.

 

[DHCaptain]

I agree 100%, the Otter is ridiculously easy to land in relatively calm winds.

Anything's easy to fly in calm winds. But you add a cross- or worse yet a tailwind, and you've got your hands full in the DHC-6. No matter how much time you have in the thing, it can be like reeling in a Northern Pike: a fight all the way.

 

[DHCaptain]

You must be really bored to be on here this much competing against the DHC-6. Its a 19 passenger turboprop that spends most of its time below 12ooo and cruises as well as lands at fairly slow airspeeds. Do you feel better? I have flown with guys (like and including Jim) that tell me that not only is the Otter the most fun aircraft they have flown but also can be one of the most challenging...thats good enough for me. Its fun and its challenging in its own ways. Guys coming out of flying the Otter have been very successful in the industry as well (due to many factors obviously)

This aint a competition Boss, let it go. Dont be that 10%.

AMEN!