Thunder Air Caravan F/O

[Lost Lake]

Can someone please enlighten me as to why a company needs an f/o on a single engine fixed gear light airplane? And please don't tell me it's because you have a much simpler engine to operate with. WTF is aviation coming to. I'm surprised they don't ask for an ATPL as well.

[LegoMan]

Can someone please enlighten me as to why a company needs an f/o on a single engine fixed gear light airplane? And please don't tell me it's because you have a much simpler engine to operate with. WTF is aviation coming to. I'm surprised they don't ask for an ATPL as well.

No, but they are asking for 1000hrs, multi-IFR.

[pilotsteve]

Contract requirements, >8hrs IFR in a day, because they feel like it.

Why you mad though?

[Sulako]

I would presume they are asking for a multi-IFR because they also operate multi-engine aircraft, and that the Caravan F/o would eventually move into a multi-engine machine. Oh, and it's likely a requirement to have 2 crew on some contracts. Why are you hatin'?

[fish4life]

if anything this is a good thing as it creates another pilot job

[StudentPilot]

Really? Come on. Two engines isn't any significant amount harder than flying a single. Retractable gear is just one more item to check before landing and after take off. If you need a second pilot to accomplish either you've got problems. So now let's all start bitching and moaning about Twin Otters, King Airs, Metros, and Navajos (in 703 Ops) that are running around with two pilots on-board when they only need one.

[warbirdpilot7]

Really? Come on. Two engines isn't any significant amount harder than flying a single. Retractable gear is just one more item to check before landing and after take off. If you need a second pilot to accomplish either you've got problems. So now let's all start bitching and moaning about Twin Otters, King Airs, Metros, and Navajos (in 703 Ops) that are running around with two pilots on-board when they only need one.

The 2 engine theory has some merit.....I will add to this theory. I have seen some pilots with alot of time on Navajo's,King Airs, Twotters etc, have an absolute hardtime with a Harvard. It is just to much airplane for them.

So the theory can go the other way as well. But to stay on forum topic, maybe this is a an insurance requirement. Dont some survey companies run 208's with 2 pilots?

[Cat Driver]

have an absolute hardtime with a Harvard. It is just to much airplane for them.

Suppose you have Pitts and decide to see what happens when you give it to your typical light twin driver to have a go at it, how long would it remain airworthy?

[Cubester]

Can someone please enlighten me as to why a company needs an f/o on a single engine fixed gear light airplane? And please don't tell me it's because you have a much simpler engine to operate with. WTF is aviation coming to. I'm surprised they don't ask for an ATPL as well.

Who's going to load/unload the plane? My back is achey just thinking about it.

Real question is, what are they paying this pilot? Hopefully it is 1000hr pilot wage, not a bush prostitute donation.

[LazyBoy Bandit]

Ya, lets whine about a job for a low timer to see and gain some northern flying!
Love this industry!

[Strega]

uppose you have Pitts and decide to see what happens when you give it to your typical light twin driver to have a go at it, how long would it remain airworthy?

Cat,

If I win the 50 million this weekend, I'll buy a dozen or so S1s and then we can watch "pilots" try and fly them.. if they dont crash,, they get to keep it!,, if they do crash,, we get laugh our asses off at them!

Comparing a CubeVan to a pitts is like comparing Cameron Diaz, and Rita McNeal...

[Cat Driver]

Strega, what puzzles me is by the time a pilot gets his/her commercial pilots license the ability to fly a Pitts should be a given.

Yet it is looked at as a feat that requires superman to achieve, what is wrong with the system?

[Strega]

Whats the matter with the system?

The fact that perhaps 1 in 10 DFTEs or TC examiners could fly a pitts.

The fact that Instructors these days are more "time builders" than actual instructors.

The fact that the government is more concerned with paperwork than actual nuts and bolts.

I could go on for hours.

[flyinhigh]

Wow, you guys went from flying FO on a caravan to flying a pitts. mmmm

Firstly I worked at thunder years ago, the time requirement is not for the van. The requirement is so that they can upgrade you quickly to right seat king air, but sure that is a bad thing.

Secondly, why is it bad that a company wants to put 2 pilots in a caravan. PC-12s do it, yet nobody bitchs. Everyone on here will bitch and whine that single IFR is dangerous and should not be aloud, yet a company is doing exactly that, getting away from SIFR and creating a new job and you guys bitch because its a caravan. WOW

Third, have you not watched ALL the previous thunder job adds. Thunder pays above what most 703 operators pay, as well as give you benefits, jumpseat with Jazz, and if I remember right there is a pention. But its a caravan so bitch away

[Cat Driver]

First off I personally believe FO positions are excellent training jobs for young pilots and the type of airplane is not all that important.

Wow, you guys went from flying FO on a caravan to flying a pitts. mmmm

You obviously are not understanding the issue.

The issue is why can't "all " commercial pilots have the skills to fly a Pitts before they are given the license, a Pitts is a light single engine airplane and not the space shuttle.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Whats the matter with the system?

The fact that perhaps 1 in 10 DFTEs or TC examiners could fly a pitts.

The fact that Instructors these days are more "time builders" than actual instructors.

The fact that the government is more concerned with paperwork than actual nuts and bolts.

I could go on for hours.

Or you could just do everyone on Avcanada a favor and STFU.......but then I guess it would not be reasonable to expect that you would listen to what I have to say because I am just an instructor and that 1.1 hrs I spent in a C172 with a student 2 days ago was only so I could "build time"

[fish4life]

First off I personally believe FO positions are excellent training jobs for young pilots and the type of airplane is not all that important.

Wow, you guys went from flying FO on a caravan to flying a pitts. mmmm

You obviously are not understanding the issue.

The issue is why can't "all " commercial pilots have the skills to fly a Pitts before they are given the license, a Pitts is a light single engine airplane and not the space shuttle.

Why should every pilot not be able to fly a 185 on floats then cat?
just as floats is different so is flying a tail dragger just one needs an endorsement.

[Cat Driver]

Why should every pilot not be able to fly a 185 on floats then cat?

Because flying floats is a different environment thus requiring specific training.

just as floats is different so is flying a tail dragger just one needs an endorsement.

A tail wheel airplane is still a land plane and also known as conventional gear, the problem is the nose wheel became the most popular because it is more forgiving during take off and landing.

Once it became the main training machine the instructors gradually accepted them as their main training configuration and the need for paying attention to accurate directional control became less important, finally most of them never did get the chance to fly conventional gear machines and they became " exotic "

It is a sad situation.

[Big Pistons Forever]

First off I personally believe FO positions are excellent training jobs for young pilots and the type of airplane is not all that important.

Wow, you guys went from flying FO on a caravan to flying a pitts. mmmm

You obviously are not understanding the issue.

The issue is why can't "all " commercial pilots have the skills to fly a Pitts before they are given the license, a Pitts is a light single engine airplane and not the space shuttle.

Saying the Pitts is "just a light single engine airplane" is IMO like saying a Turbo Goose is "just a small twin engine seaplane". Both have unusually demanding landing and takeoff characteristics that a lower time pilot would require extra training and practice before acceptable proficiency would be expected. To expect that level of skill from every 200 hr Cpl is IMO unreasonable. Does that mean that CPL skill level of your average new minted CPL is adequate....absolutely not.

So what practical, implementable ideas do you have to improve the standard of CPL training ?

[fish4life]

Why should every pilot not be able to fly a 185 on floats then cat?

Because flying floats is a different environment thus requiring specific training.

just as floats is different so is flying a tail dragger just one needs an endorsement.

A tail wheel airplane is still a land plane and also known as conventional gear, the problem is the nose wheel became the most popular because it is more forgiving during take off and landing.

Once it became the main training machine the instructors gradually accepted them as their main training configuration and the need for paying attention to accurate directional control became less important, finally most of them never did get the chance to fly conventional gear machines and they became " exotic "

It is a sad situation.

How is tail wheel not a different environment? It's a different type of landing and done differently, someone that only has tailwheel experience is told to go fly a tricycle gear it will take them some time to get used to that as well as it's different once again. Unimproved strips conventional is favorable so does that mean guys taking tricycle gear planes in there and doing it well and safely are lessor pilots if they couldn't do the same thing in a conventional gear aircraft even though conventional is more appropriate for the situation?

personally I'd be much more comfortable flying a float plane than tail dragger even though its a different environment but that's because it's what I know how to fly.

[Cat Driver]

I guess in the final analysis these discussions become bogged down in personal opinions and personal beliefs on what flying and flying training is all about.

For me it probably more a way to pass time than anything else, as in all these years of posting on the instructors forum I seem to be seen as an outsider who is alien to this group.

How the industry goes about training is beyond my ability to change and fortunately I am far removed from ab-initio flying so I guess it really doesn't matter what I think.

As to comparing the Turbo Goose and the Pitts to other airplanes the truth is none of them are really that difficult to fly.

There are undoubtedly quite a few instructors here who have flown the Pitts, but there were not that many Turbo Goose's in use commercially in Canada and I am wondering how many of you flight instructors actually have flown a Turbo Goose?

I make those observations from the position of having enough time on both the Turbo Goose and the Pitts to feel comfortable with my opinion on their handling characteristics and the difficulty comparison to other airplanes.

For me to truly have any ability to change or try and improve the quality of teaching at the FTU level I would need my flight instructors rating renewed...and that is not to likely to happen.

[Doc]

bobm, I know you're reading these. Like my new signature?

[Strega]

Or you could just do everyone on Avcanada a favor and STFU.......but then I guess it would not be reasonable to expect that you would listen to what I have to say because I am just an instructor and that 1.1 hrs I spent in a C172 with a student 2 days ago was only so I could "build time"

Now, If I didnt know better, I would say this is a personal attack....

[bobm]

bobm, I know you're reading these. Like my new signature?

Well....YES!

[flyinhigh]

bobm, I know you're reading these. Like my new signature?

Well....YES!

LOL