PC12 vs Multi time for 704-705 Operators

[FlyingMonkey]

Our industry, specifically 704, 705 operators, put too much emphasis on multi time requirements when looking for new hires. Is 500 hrs on a Navajo or any light twin piston more valuable and more applicable than time on a PC12? I don't think so at all. Do operators really think that because you fly a light twin you would be better prepared to deal with an engine failure on a Dash 8 than someone with time on a PC12...no way. Unless you are a twin pilot who's had several engine failures and recovered successfully, your multi time shouldn't carry any more weight than someone who's been flying a PC12. Further more, every operator is going to train you how to recover from an engine failure on whichever aircraft you will be piloting. Every twin handles asymmetrics differently, so having experience on one twin doesn't necessarily make you equipped and prepared to deal with an engine failure on all twins...

Eventually the pool of pilots who have 500+ multi will dry up and 704, 705 operators will have to lower they're requirements if they intend on filling vacant positions. Even if the pool doesn't dry up anytime soon, not everyone with adequate multi or TT is in a race to take a huge pay cut and fly a Dash 8 for 34K...but I'll save that discussion for another day.

[AirSprint HR]

Our industry, specifically 704, 705 operators, put too much emphasis on multi time requirements when looking for new hires. Is 500 hrs on a Navajo or any light twin piston more valuable and more applicable than time on a PC12? I don't think so at all. Do operators really think that because you fly a light twin you would be better prepared to deal with an engine failure on a Dash 8 than someone with time on a PC12...no way. Unless you are a twin pilot who's had several engine failures and recovered successfully, your multi time shouldn't carry any more weight than someone who's been flying a PC12. Further more, every operator is going to train you how to recover from an engine failure on whichever aircraft you will be piloting. Every twin handles asymmetrics differently, so having experience on one twin doesn't necessarily make you equipped and prepared to deal with an engine failure on all twins...

Eventually the pool of pilots who have 500+ multi will dry up and 704, 705 operators will have to lower they're requirements if they intend on filling vacant positions. Even if the pool doesn't dry up anytime soon, not everyone with adequate multi or TT is in a race to take a huge pay cut and fly a Dash 8 for 34K...but I'll save that discussion for another day.

Our experience with the PC12 was that it provided excellent experience for our pilots transitioning to Citations. We view PC12 time as the same as King Air time.

AirSprint HR

[Meatservo]

The requirement for multi experience was established before there were things like PC-12s out there. Think about the next most complicated single in general circulation. Remember that multi-engine usually means you have experience working in a crew, in a high performance plane, with more complicated systems. You have to categorize things some way. The PC12 is an anomaly.

I'm not sure why you think the "pool" of pilots with 500 hours of multi-engine time is going to "dry up" though. Where did they come from before? Have they stopped making them?

[FlyingMonkey]

I agree that the PC12 is an anomaly in that it really is the only single capable of operating much like a multi turbine. Multi time doesn't always mean you have two crew experience or high performance time. I know a lot of people who have made the jump from single piston twin to 704, 705 (and that's awesome, nothing wrong with that). In contrast, I know several people with significant PC12 time, in some cases lots of PC12 PIC time, and they have been turned down because they did not meet the multi requirements.

The PC12 has been around for 20+ years. So if multi experience was established prior to the PC12 coming on the scene, operators have had plenty of time to adjust they're requirements. Turbine, multi-crew and EFIS time should be what's sought after in terms of hour requirements, not whether it's a single or a multi.

As for running out of 500 multi hour pilots. They will still be out there, but with starting salaries across the board for most 704, 705 operators being low to mid 30's, I think operators will have a hard time finding guys/girls who meet that criteria and are willing to take a position with starting salaries that low. When, and if, that is the case, hopefully the guys/girls with time on a PC12 will get picked up!

Good on you Air Sprint! I hope other operators follow suit!

[Meatservo]

Well you can bet that just like anywhere else in our world, as the quality of the applicants decreases so will the minimum standards, in order to keep the trains running on time.

While multi time doesn't necessarily mean that you have two crew experience, or IFr experience, OR high-performance experience, before the PC-12, having exclusively single-engine time was a practical guarantee that you DIDN't! Also, of course I'm sure you agree that it matters just as much what kind of multi-engine job you're going for when your experience is weighed in the balance. PC-12 time would be great experience for someone looking to get a job on (like above) a Citation or B1900 or something. For some other, older, bigger types, or types that operate in special circumstances, maybe not so much. Definitely you should find out early on if the job you have now is a good prerequisite for the job you want later.

The PC-12 may have been around for 20 years but you still don't see very many of them. And I think people who have time on one are getting their resumes taken seriously in places where that kind of experience counts.

[Liquid Charlie]

I don't see it's a problem with type and matters little if it's a single or a cabin class twin -- the issue for me is the lack of multi-crew experience - Meat also mentioned this and while companies put "seat fillers" in to please the CARS and yes they receive training but most of the small 703 operators set up the SOP's which lets the captain revert to a single pilot structure which most will do so the bottom line is the multi-crew concept gets diluted at the very best --

Having said all that it's now part of the industry and time marches on and eventually pilots will all be just warm bodies monitoring a computer who will have just one job -- push the big red panic button to engage the backup computers

Moving along with the times and kicking the hornet's nest --- TC has eroded the ability to do actual aircraft training to the point of being a joke -- maybe there should be a movement to ban all IFR and night VFR commercial passenger aircraft that don't have a full simulator --

[Meatservo]

In the small operators you get some captains who do a great job mentoring their low-time co-pilots. The problem is that no-one gets any training on "how to be a captain" either, so it boils down to this inheritance sort of thing where if you had good captains you might turn out to be one someday, and if you didn't, you might not. Not 100% of the time though, you might have a bad experience and resolve not to be like that yourself when the time comes.

It's really a crap-shoot in civilian aviation. Good leaders just sort of pop out of no-where and thankfully they exist in a high enough ratio that things still work out OK most of the time. There isn't any control over it though. Ask anyone who works in a boardroom environment where the leadership resides in their aviation company, and I bet you none of them will point towards the captains, and they will all point at themselves. Everybody pays lip-service to the importance of flight-deck leadership, but few people in a position to change anything are willing to make an investment in it, when it's "just pilots" who stand to benefit, and it's hard to draw a direct line between more professional development for the flight crews and more ivory back-scratchers for the executives.

Sorry to change the subject. I agree with Liquid Charlie, that the "multi crew" thing is the most difficult aspect of large aircraft operations to teach from the outset. A high percentage of accidents these days in my opinion boil down to a lack of formal leadership training in the cockpits.

[shimmydampner]

I'm inclined to agree with meatservo's previous post in that there are companies out there where that time counts. However, I'm also inclined to not have any sympathy for anyone stuck as a result of not having the type of experience for the job they want to get, especially if that time is multi and/or PIC. It's not as though it's a big secret that PIC time, in particular multi PIC time, is king. You may wish it weren't so, but it's reality so plan accordingly. I'll never understand why people come here to complain that the reality of this industry doesn't match the dream world they inhabit. Just look at any discussion about the perceived injustices of ATPL requirements or the likelihood of a new CPL having to work the ramp and you'll see this place is rife with people blowing sunshine rays of entitlement up each others hoo ha's. The requirements to progress to whatever level you wish in this industry are not shrouded in mystery. They are common knowledge. I say again: plan accordingly. You are not entitled to a linear career progression with a constant upward trajectory. You may have to make a perceived lateral or even backwards move in order to get ahead. If you find yourself in such a position, it'll take you where you want to go quicker than complaining on the internet.

[iflyforpie]

I don't know.... that ATR in Taiwan shows that good multi engine skills are as important as ever.

[fish4life]

Perhaps companies are partially scared off by the fact that someone with PC-12 time might not have as good instrument flying when the flight director gets turned off as someone who was flying a ho. Not saying that's always the case but it's a possibility.

[Boreas]

Turbine, multi-crew and EFIS time should be what's sought after in terms of hour requirements, not whether it's a single or a multi.

Me and my bags of Caravan, multi-crew, EFIS time couldn't agree more Yes, yes, I know its no PC12, put the pitchforks down.

Regarding guys with single engine time not getting on with 704/705 operators, the application process is a lot to blame. The first stage is usually fully automated and includes questions such as: Do you have over 250h multi? Select Y/N. You'll be automatically disqualified, and that's that. I remember one such application asking nothing of multi-crew time, yet inquiring about whether or not I had SPIFR experience... I suppose if its in a Navajo it would be better than in a King Air since you're underpowered and 'siting in it'. Hasn't that been argued before? I think there was a thread on here about that - probably started by a Navajo guy. To each his own...

It reminds me of something the Colonel once wrote. Something along the lines of: There's bullshit, then there's bullshit piled higher and steeper, and then there are Pilot Logbooks.

[Meatservo]

In my opinion, if someone has Single-Pilot IFR experience, that's gold. One or two engines. But of course, I have been specifically warned to stop thumbing through the pile of resumés on my chief pilot's desk.

[FlyingMonkey]

I couldn't agree more with importance of a positive two crew environment and mentoring for FO's not only on how to operate the aircraft and know the SOP's, but also pilot decision making, leadership and all the qualities that will make a good captain.

My first FO position was with Wasaya Airways on a PC12. I was very fortunate to have good captains who were knowledgeable, patient and willing to teach. Choosing a company with a positive work culture is so key when deciding which company you want to work for. Chances are if you find yourself with a good company where morale is high, you will have good people around you and captains who are willing to teach you how to prepare yourself for the left seat.

[teacher]

My time at AirSprint taught me everything I needed to move on in my career. Flying the PC12 in both the right AND left seat was invaluable experience. In a 2 week span I flew from Vancouver to Halifax, down to Florida and everywhere in between. IFR flying is IFR flying. Saying multi time is valuable because of engine failures assumes you lose one every week. The only time you perform the multi skills is during your yearly recurrent training.

I hadn't flown a twin in years when I went for my jazz sim eval and did the raw data multi ride just fine.

Having said all that PIC time is king followed by turbine experience. Kinda dumb though considering flying a turbine aircraft is easier than a piston banger except for the speeds and altitudes that are usually a little greater.

[Cat Driver]

IFR flying is IFR flying.

Exactly.

[Meatservo]

You might say multi-engine flying is EASIER, considering that one engine failure doesn't guarantee you'll be pulling out the "landing with all engines inoperative" checklist or the "ditching" checklist.

Depends on how you look at it. Ideally if you had time on your hands and an adventurous spirit you'd try all the different kinds of flying.