Time Building Question

[Typhoon]

Hey there,

Just a question out of curiosity that a few of my friends and I were discussing, but I'm curious as to what other people think regarding time building for job (nothing specific).

Say if some lucky person (person A) owned their own plane and decided that once they got their CPL they would build their time to say 1000 hours total time as an example on this aircraft. While another person (person B), who also just obtained their CPL, decided to work as ground personnel, instructor, etc... to build their hours.

When the time came and say both individuals applied for the same job, would employers (or I guess do employers) prefer one candidate over the other? I understand work experience is definitely a great asset to have and would think it would have a lot to do with getting a first job, but is it a vital asset in the early stages?

Thanks,
Typhoon

[AJV]

I would say the guy with the work experience, for a couple of reasons, 1 shows that you can or can't work with other people in your field be it peers or superiors,2 gives a person real experience in the aviation business world and not just going and bombing around in your plane for fun.
my 2 bits....

[KK7]

I second the above post, that actual work experience is more valuable towards getting the next job, then bombing around, despite major expense of flying 800 hours on your own dime after getting a CPL...that's approximately $80 000 worth of flying at best!!!

Getting work experience is more pertinent to a potential employer than private experience where you don't deal with pressures, commercial/FTU operations and paperwork. That's not to say taking care of your own plane doesn't have it's share of work and responsibility, but it isn't the same as flying from the standpoint of a job.

[Canadian Skyhawk]

As is often the case on Avcanada, this a hypothetical question lacking in important details. Does the candidate in question have any other work / life experience? How is he going to pay for his 800 hours of private flying - by working his tail off or by spending mom and dad's cash? How old is the candidate? What's his academic background, if any?

Hours do matter. They reflect how much real life exposure to flying one has had. Of course, you can always limit yourself to flying in VMC between quiet airports with no risk of any unforeseen incident. But that would require a very long time to build 800 hours - at least in Canada.

It's been my experience that all else being equal (and admittedly, it almost never is), a 1,000 hour candidate will almost certainly beat out a 200 hour candidate. Now if that 1,000 hour candidate is 19 years old, has zero work / life experience, has not finished high school, has an arrogant personality and has built up his time flying daddy's brand new Cirrus between Florida and Freeport, while the 200 hour candidate is 27 years old, has an engineering degree and has been working the ramp in exemplary fashion for a year - well, maybe the 200 hour candidate will get picked. But, as I said, all else being equal - the hours mean something.

Unfortunately, Avcanada members seem to have a bone to pick with individuals who have accumulated hours flying privately. This is evident on most forums, where the attitude seems to be that if you have paid for your experience, you are somehow unworthy of the profession. This attitude does not exist in the USA, where GA is huge compared to Canada, and where private pilots with hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of hours routinely make the jump to commercial flying.

We are sadly in a profession where there are simply too many candidates for the available positions - while there is no limit to how many candidates get admitted to flying schools. This is completely different from other professions - doctors, nurses and dentists come to mind - where the supply of candidates is controlled by the industry. I'm not sure if the latter model is superior, as many present day pilots would never have gotten past the initial hurdles. I believe that the present system simply ensures that the most resourceful and most committed make it. It's the law of the jungle - just as in real life.

Sorry for the long reply. Best of luck to you.

[Typhoon]

Thanks for all of the replies . I guess work experience is vital no matter what stage of your career you are in!

Just to build on the question, if the individual with the plane built IMC time while person instructing was strictly flying VFR, would that change anything? Or would the work experience still be the deciding factor?

Thanks

[Freetime]

Having purchased an airplane to fly in for fun and to build time definitely worked for me. Got me not only my first job, but my second one also. Airplanes also appreciate in value, so in the end the price it sold for earned some extra cash to offset the operational costs incurred during ownership making it a very cheap and enjoyable option. I would do it again in a heartbeat - the only thing I would change is to buy the smallest twin engine plane I could find rather than a single.

[jpilot77]

As an owner of an aircraft myself, I would say the experience of owning and maintaining an aircraft is valuable experience to have.

[kevinsky18]

+1

The experience you gain as an owner of an aircraft is very valuable and it cannot be learned flying / working for someone else. However, I would describe it more as a tick box on the experience check list than an hours comparison.

[trey kule]

first lets talk about logging time..companies, for one reason or another have a minimum number of hours. min on type , category etc..As long as they are logged honestly, and without resorting to loopholes, how you get there is of no real concern. Sometimes things like lots of cross country are important, or low level flying like crop spraying, water bombing, or surveying float time, coastal time etc., but you get the idea...Meet the standard and demonstrate you did it in an honest way. Be

Now the rest of your suitability is based on a whole raft of other things. Age and work experience definitely play a part. Education, sometimes maritial and family status, ability to get along with others. It is about you as a person. The flying history just gets you looked at.

It is almost impossible to derive any satisfactory answer from a hypothetical question like the one posed. Some of the others have already nicely put it, that all other things being equal.

when it comes to logging time, keep in mind that because of the costs of hiring and turnover, more and more log books are being scrutinized for indications of honesty....here is just one example...Distance from A to B 200 n.m. Typical speed of the type Aircraft 200kts...Time shown in logbook for the flight 2.8 hours! Catches peoples interest and makes them sometimes dig deeper, or give the previous CP a call and ask the question about speeds of that plane etc. You never get a return call and never know the reason why. Lots of rather new pilots that cannot seem to ever take a plane off of a a remote airstrip or lake and taxi it a few hundred feet on landing in less than 15 mins.

In my eternal hope that TC reads these forums, I would like to see the limits for PPL, CPL reduced, but only AIR time be allowed to be logged. I think it would make a huge difference as companies would no longer look the other way while pilots added or always rounded up.
And it allstarts witht he FTU's who charge for "hobbs time", whatever that relates to.

[Beefitarian]

Lucky person C, he owns a plane and got anentry level flying job, by the time he logged 600 hours at work instead of 1000 hours total he was at 1800. Thus scooping the better job from those other two low timers.

[Freetime]

Something to add is that I often come across people who are in need of getting their ATPL but don't have enough night X/C PIC. When I used my airplane for personal reasons I tried to fly at night as much as possible so that this was not a concern when I reached the other hour requirements for the ATPL. I don't know if this problem arises often, but it sure seems to in the places I have been employed.