Scenic Airlines

[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.