Does single engine turbine count to the airlines?

[Shotgun10]

Does single engine turbine time count to the airlines?

[desksgo]

I'd post on the same topic twice to shroud my insecurities about not having a second engine.

But sure, why wouldn't it have some bearing?

[Shotgun10]

Thanks for the flame and your opinion.
Any more jems.

[ei ei owe]

I think 20 hrs of glider time counts too. Now that's something! Not even one engine!!!

[lyncher]

i've heard mixed things about it.

[altiplano]

Time is time.

SE isn't as good as ME but it still counts...

But what's "complex" about it?

[Shotgun10]

Complex is a just a term the regulators use to desribe an aircraft that has alot of electrical systems and avionics...so I have been told. Turbines are frigen easy to manage compared to say a 421....geared engines are not for the ham fisted.
Basically I'm just asking if airlines give "credit" to C208 or PC-12 time.

[altiplano]

.

[Shotgun10]

Sigh.....
Why don't you just get the flaming me over with for asking such a poorly worded question.
I really am interested in getting a good feel if my time in a single engine turboprop is really worth anything in "credits" when the the airline are determining if your "worthy".

[Pete]

id like to fly one...and when I get the chance...asking myself what the airlines think about the pc-12 will have no bearing on my decision. I bet the thing provides a nice view

[neechi]

To answer your question; yes, pc12 time is becoming more and more recognised and respected by the airlines. For example, westjet is finding the guys with just king air or metro time were having a much harder time than the ppl with 1900 and PC12 time and as a side note the prior sim courses were thought to make a differnce aswell. Also, the pc 12 and 1900 systems, sensors, and flows are much more similar to an airliner and far more complex than the 1970's technology found in king airs.

I know ppl who have gone to right seat 705 with only the multi from their initial ride. Their first mpic will be on a heavy....and no it will not delay their upgrade as it is based on time on type.

[pika]

Why don't you just apply?

[Shotgun10]

Neechi,

Thank you for your reply, very interesting. Could you PM me with more details about this little multi time going into 705 ops.

[185/310]

Neechi wrote:

[/quote]For example, westjet is finding the guys with just king air or metro time were having a much harder time than the ppl with 1900 and PC12 time and as a side note the prior sim courses were thought to make a differnce aswell. Also, the pc 12 and 1900 systems, sensors, and flows are much more similar to an airliner and far more complex than the 1970's technology found in king airs.

Im a little lost on this one. Whats the difference between a King Air 200 cockpit and a 1900 cockpit except for digital AI and HSI, other then that there basically the same thing. Makes sense there both made by Beech. 1900 systems are pretty close to the same as 200 systems as well.

If your looking to go to the airlines 1900 time would be alot better then PC12 time.

[teacher]

If only it was that easy to just get a 1900 job instead of a PC12 one. We all gotta start somewhere. PC12 is great, fast and lotsa gizmos that you'll see later on in your career. I know of many 1900 drivers that started on the PC12. I also know of a few to go directly to Jazz off a 12.

[bearitus]

Wanted to revive this thread with a new question. As a 1000 hour single engine piston pilot with my eyes set on the regionals (Jazz, Encore, etc...) would it be better to accept a king air FO job or a caravan captain job? Do the regionals value multi turbine FO time the same as single engine turbine PIC time?

[Zaibatsu]

Multi pic is still king. You've got a better shot at that with the King Air job especially in this job market where they are often upgrading in months vs years. It also adds two crew experience.

[jpilot77]

PIC is king.

[photofly]

Thanks for the flame and your opinion.
Any more jems.

Not from me, but the word is gems.

[172_Captain]

I'd argue that PIC is king adage is a thing of the past, at least for now. These days the regionals only care about two crew experience, and turbine time. I've had friends apply to the regionals with 1,000+ PIC and 500+ multi only to be turned down because it was all instructing time, and I've seen people with 1,500TT with 250PIC get picked up because they had two crew and turbine time. Also the metrics for upgrade standards at the regionals are based on TT and time on type alone.

[Black_Tusk]

Also the metrics for upgrade standards at the regionals are based on TT and time on type alone.

At Jazz all that matters is your date of hire.


As for the single vs. multi argument. Any turbine time is usefull, but I still dont' see many people getting called without that MPIC. The only people I personally know (and I'm sure there are others that don't fit this mold) got called once they checked the 1500 and 500MPIC boxes. Within days/weeks.

I don't know any single engine only pilots at Jazz, although I'm sure there may be a few here and there.

[skybluetrek]

Hi everyone, another question for this interesting thread: What would a 'ranking of the best flight time to log' look like?
For all the 250TT Wannabes looking at the thousand+++ hour requirements and thinking how the heck could they log more time to keep chasing the carrot.

1) MPIC - the holy grail?
2) PIC - regardless of what sort of machine it is. Even if you have to pedal to move the prop?
3) MSIC - Piston twin from the 70s or...
4) SSIC - EFIS turboprop like a PC12NG?

[Zaibatsu]

I'd do it like this.

250-800/1000. Get SE PIC and any multi PIC you can get. Instructing time is good too since you can get the coveted night PIC you'll need for your AAs.

800/1000-1500. Multi turbine FO. Get the two crew experience, turbine experience, get your AAs done as soon as you hit that 1500 hour mark. That upgrade won't be far behind, then start bugging Jazz/Encore/even Air Canada.

[DanJ]

I see the OP is still active, if not posting very much. Curious how the last 10 years went from this discussion.