PPC/Ride question

[down north]

I currently work on the ground for a charter operator who operates several types of twin turbine aircraft. I have a number and am in line for a flying position.
I still need to acquire my IFR rating and am thinking about the most economical way of doing this.

It has been recommended in order to save some money, complete the IFR rating on a single engine aircraft.
I was told that once I do a PPC/ride on one of our twin turbine aircraft it is essential an IFR ride as well. My sinlge IFR rating would become a multi IFR rating and I am good to go.
I was told that the only way for this to work is I would need a multi rating which I already have.

Before starting a single IFR rating I need to ensure this in fact would legally work, any thoughts or ideas?

Much appreciated...

[KK7]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think you can do an initial upgrade from a group 3 to a 1 while doing a PPC, but I most certainly can be wrong. This is what I found in the regs, assuming you are talking about a 703 operation:

(g) A PPC must include a demonstration of instrument flight (IF) proficiency if:

(i) the candidate possesses a valid Instrument Rating; and

(ii) the candidate conducts commercial IFR operations on the aeroplane in which the PPC is conducted.

Where a pilot successfully completes the full pilot proficiency check, the pilot successfully completes the requirements for the renewal of the applicable instrument rating.

However it is true that when "upgrading" from a group 3 to a 1 with a regular pilot examiner that the flight test is not considered to be an initial flight test, but a renewal and you simply get the group that is applicable to the type of aircraft you did the flight test in.

I'm sure someone more in the know will answer on here, but I wouldn't take anybody's word but the person who will actually sign it off. Ask your company's Chief Pilot or an ACP in your company.

[Hedley]

Most economical way to get your instrument rating is to make heavy use of a sim. I'm not sure how many hood hours you have already, but you are allowed to do 20 of the 40 hours of hood time for the instrument rating on an approved sim. The sim is a good place to learn procedures and techniques - eg ADF tracking with wind. The aircraft is a lousy place to learn this.

And, you don't have to do all 20 hours of the aircraft hood time in a multi - you could do some in a single, at first. You only need to do enough hours of hood time in a multi-engine aircraft to get competent at flying it (engine out, etc) for the group 1 flight test, which is really a departure, ground speed check, then back for a hold and two approaches.

Much of what is new for people with multi-engine flying really has nothing to do with two engines - for example constant speed prop, retractable gear, HSI, IFR GPS.

PS If your multi has Garmin 430/530, download the free sims and manuals from their website, and use them to familiarize yourself with them, before you get into an airplane.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you have a CPL you allready have at least 20 hrs of IF so the numbers of hours in the plane is not an issue. As Hed says you should do all your learning in the Sim , the aircraft is for demonstrating and integrating all your skills. My experience is the lenght and therefore the total costs of your rating is directly influenced by how hard you work. Time spent studying, practicing procedures, and chair flying saves time and therefore money, when the sim or airplane hobbs is running.

One factor that does apply to your position is your first PPC is like your first game in the show. You have to pass the PPC ride. The company is going to be looking to see if you have the right stuff so do you really want to show up for PPC training on a fast strange complicated aircraft with the added disadvantage of having to learn the ME stuff too ? The industry standard for people like you is you show up for your training for your first PPC with a current ME Instrument rating. I would be carefull about being the round peg in the square hole.....

[RenegadeAV8R]

It has been recommended in order to save some money, complete the IFR rating on a single engine aircraft.
I was told that once I do a PPC/ride on one of our twin turbine aircraft it is essential an IFR ride as well. My sinlge IFR rating would become a multi IFR rating and I am good to go.

I know a guy you did exactly what you suggested; he went from single IFR to multi IFR during his first PPC ride. However, in his case, the idea had been suggested by his "future" Chief Pilot.

As Big Pistons Forever said; do everything required to make sure that you pass your first PPC ride with flying colors.

[down north]

Thanks for the input guys/gals! I appreciate it very much.
Chief Pilot and Ops Manager say this would work so I am good to go.

Aircraft rental for a twin at some schools is $300 plus per hours. This could save me quite a bit of money....
I think the first 20 right seat hours of paid line indoc training in a King Air, Metro, Twin Otter or Dash 8 are more valuable as oppressed to learning and paying for time in a Seminole.

[KK7]

This could save me quite a bit of money....
I think the first 20 right seat hours of paid line indoc training in a King Air, Metro, Twin Otter or Dash 8 are more valuable as oppressed to learning and paying for time in a Seminole.

Whoa there cowboy! Those hours are only valuable if you have basic skills and know what you're doing. Line indoc is about teaching you line flying, not teaching you the basics of IFR and how to deal with emergencies. I'd be pissed if I was given an FO who wasn't capable of holding their own when the $hit hits the fan. Know what you're doing first!

[down north]

I totally agree with you KK7 and I think I worded my last statement a bit poorly. I am not saying that one should slack off or not try as hard during your initial flight training.

I also do not think flying your initial 20 hours IFR in a seminole over a C172 is going to make you a superior pilot.

A 200 hour pilot transitioning to a Twin Turbine aircraft, regardless of the types of aircraft utilized for training during ppl/cpl/ifr has a long way to go in regards to being completely proficient and competent in the real IFR/twin turbine world. In fact many of the guys I work with come off the ramp without touching an aircraft for 1 to 3 years. Regardless of how much studying and hanger flying you do or how well you do in your ground school in this situation most folks I have talked to feel intimidated and inadequate during the first hours in a high performance airplane. I can imagine it takes quite a bit of time to become comfortable as an FO in an aircraft such as a King Air, Metro or Dash-8 after working a ramp or dispatching for this long.
I think most companies who hire rampies have a fairly good training program. They realize it takes a bit of work to take someone who has not flown for years and transition them into a turbine aircraft, but everyone is different.

[hairdo]

I also do not think flying your initial 20 hours IFR in a seminole over a C172 is going to make you a superior pilot.

It may not make you a superior pilot, but everything happens much faster and with a greater degree of complexity in a multi-turbine than in a 172, so a light twin might make your transition a bit smoother, being somewhat more complex and faster than a 172.

[Hedley]

everything happens much faster and with a greater degree of complexity in a multi-turbine than in a 172

Really?! I find turbine engines so much simpler.

PS Not sure I know what you mean by "much faster". Are you hinting that you're breaking the 250 knot rule below 10k?

[Big Pistons Forever]

everything happens much faster and with a greater degree of complexity in a multi-turbine than in a 172

Really?! I find turbine engines so much simpler.

PS Not sure I know what you mean by "much faster". Are you hinting that you're breaking the 250 knot rule below 10k?

I think it is obvious it would be easier to go from 172 to Seminole to KingAir then to go directly from a C172 to a KingAir which was what I would suggest is the point down north was making. That is not to say it is impossible to make the C172 to KingAir leap simply that an intermediate step makes the transition easier. And yes Turbines so much easier to operate than a big turbocharged Ga piston but the fact remains that the cruise speed of a C172 is about the same as the rotation speed for a KA200. To think the extra speed of a turbine won't stress a low time C172 is simply not IMO realistic.

[Big Pistons Forever]

everything happens much faster and with a greater degree of complexity in a multi-turbine than in a 172

Really?! I find turbine engines so much simpler.

PS Not sure I know what you mean by "much faster". Are you hinting that you're breaking the 250 knot rule below 10k?

I think it is obvious it would be easier to go from 172 to Seminole to KingAir then to go directly from a C172 to a KingAir which was what I would suggest is the point down north was making. That is not to say it is impossible to make the C172 to KingAir leap simply that an intermediate step makes the transition easier. And yes Turbines so much easier to operate than a big turbocharged GA piston engine , but the fact remains that the cruise speed of a C172 is about the same as the rotation speed for a KA200. To think the extra speed of a turbine won't stress a low time C172 driver is simply not IMO realistic.

[stef]

Do you have a multi engine rating? Your idea won't work if you don't.

[hairdo]

everything happens much faster and with a greater degree of complexity in a multi-turbine than in a 172

Really?! I find turbine engines so much simpler.

PS Not sure I know what you mean by "much faster". Are you hinting that you're breaking the 250 knot rule below 10k?

What gives you the idea that I would be breaking 250kts below 10k? Kinda impossible since the aircraft I'm currently flying has a barber pole of 247KIAS/.48M... so I would be breaking a lot more than the CARs to do that...

A 172 cruises (depending on models) in the 90-120ish knot range. Approaches are going to be slower still. You go much further in the same time frame in most multi-turbines than in a 172, so yes, you have to think much faster. I didn't think that was a particularly difficult concept...

As far as complexity, I wasn't referring to the engines themselves when I speak of complexity. They are relatively simple to operate. What I'm referring to are the greater number of systems that will be encountered in most multi-turbines which will need monitoring and/or controlling. So it will be more to keep up with.

Between the two above points, I think a multi-piston will help to smooth out the transition by adding a somewhat faster speed to approaches, and a greater number of systems to monitor/control than would be encountered in a 172. So all I'm saying is that it will make the transition smoother, not make the impossible possible.

[Hedley]

What gives you the idea that I would be breaking 250kts below 10k?

I guess it's a matter of perspective. You brag that you fly "much faster" than a 172, I'm not expecting a decimal order of magnitude, but certainly some multiples thereof - say 300 to 500 knots, down low.

[KK7]

What gives you the idea that I would be breaking 250kts below 10k?

I guess it's a matter of perspective. You brag that you fly "much faster" than a 172, I'm not expecting a decimal order of magnitude, but certainly some multiples thereof - say 300 to 500 knots, down low.

Hedley, not everyone flies your hot little bird like you do. Thanks for pointing it out once again and making me feel jealous!

[Hedley]

meh. Max is only 490 knots indicated.

It's nice tooling around down low at 400 knots indicated, but I wouldn't call that fast. My father used to fly twice that fast in the weeds in the F-104, which still holds the world low-altitude speed record: 1000 mph.

http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm

Keep in mind that the low-altitude record for flight speed was set in the Seventies with a slightly modified Starfighter. Which was owned by a civilian group, Darryl Greenameyer's Red Baron racing team. They went to the high desert and set the record at 988 mph, averaged from four passes, each at a height above ground level of less than a hundred meters. The record requires that this be done without landing or exceeding an altitude of 300 meters between passes. On one set of passes the plane averaged just over 1000 mph, but due to a fault in the timing equipment this is not official.

1000 statute mph is fast, down low. Maybe even compared to a King Air.

[hairdo]

meh. Max is only 490 knots indicated.

It's nice tooling around down low at 400 knots indicated, but I wouldn't call that fast. My father used to fly twice that fast in the weeds in the F-104, which still holds the world low-altitude speed record: 1000 mph.

http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm

Keep in mind that the low-altitude record for flight speed was set in the Seventies with a slightly modified Starfighter. Which was owned by a civilian group, Darryl Greenameyer's Red Baron racing team. They went to the high desert and set the record at 988 mph, averaged from four passes, each at a height above ground level of less than a hundred meters. The record requires that this be done without landing or exceeding an altitude of 300 meters between passes. On one set of passes the plane averaged just over 1000 mph, but due to a fault in the timing equipment this is not official.

1000 statute mph is fast, down low. Maybe even compared to a King Air.

Oh, great, so we've got a "mines bigger than yours" competition? You've clearly missed the point of the thread. Nice to see you're posting relevant info... Oh, and I don't fly a King Air...


down north, good luck with things, whichever route you take.

[oldtimer]

Before I retired, I was an ACP. I never encountered a pilot with only a single-engine IFR. The best I have had to do is renew a long expired IFR and pilots who have the absolute minimum of multi time. I do not know if it can be done or if the hiring company will even consider doing it. If they will, good for you and good for them.
Not to be negative but keep one thing in mind.
When a pilot goes to a flight school for training, he/she is a customer and is treated like a customer.
During a PPC training you are no longer a customer, you are there to pass the ride so the company can hire and use you as a qualified pilot. If you cannot impress the examiner/chief pilot, and if you cannot cut it, you will be cut loose. Without much fanfare and without compassion.
On the positive, most ACP's will usually cut you some slack on the initial ride, not for basic IFR knowledge or skills but for systems knowledge and some airplane specific handling practices. This usually takes the form of depending/accepting prompts from the second pilot.
So the only way you are going to do well is to be prepared and you will have to put a lot of effort into the training. You should come out of the experience happy and confident but physically and mentally drained.
Get as much training/experience as you can afford beforehand. IFR training and practice in a 172 will improve your instrument skills which will give you a leg up to concentrate on flying the turbine twin.