50 hour course

[avman]

Hi, I originally posted last year about the 50 hour bush course and everyone was very helpful. I did decide to take the 50 hour course after all and have almost all the money saved. I checked out a few schools and I think I'll probably go to Airhart in Kelowna. I am really torn though as I have almost the money I need to take it on 172 XP they have but wonder if I should take it on the 180 instead. My friend told me 180 time is good to have but that means I will have to save more money before I go. What is everyone's thought on the 172XP vs the 180?

Thanks.

[angry inch]

Save your money!! I can't see how the difference between a 172xp & a 180 will be of much value to you. Getting an experienced instructor is what you should be focusing on. Don't take my word for it though, phone & ask the chief pilots to whom you will be applying in the future & see what they say...

Good Luck!

[avman]

Thanks Angry Inch, when I spoke to Airhart they said in their opinion the 172Xp is practically the same given it is XP, constant speed, etc. When I mentioned the 180 they said that the 172XP doesn't always get the respect it deserves but that if money is a consideration to fly the 172XP and save the money. It was my friend that said I should get the 180 time as it would still look better on the resume. However there is almost $3000.00 price difference. Of course when I called a school that only had 180 on the Coast, they said 180 time better.

[Highsea]

Of course when I called a school that only had 180 on the Coast, they said 180 time better.

that's they job to sell you on they aircraft. I agree with angry inch... save your money and get a job with someone to build 180 time; well getting paid to do so.

[avman]

Thanks for the quick responses. A friend of mine had taken the 50 hour on the 180 and did a job from an operator with a 180 that hired him because of his 180 time so I am sure it can help in some situations, like in his case. If I do go with training with airhart, they have both the 180 and 172 XP and maybe I could still get some hours on the 180 towards the end just to even have a check out on it. Airhart mentioned to save money I should take on the 172XP but if I really wanted some 180 time, I could get some hours towards the end. Do you think a check out would be a good idea at the very least? I think I may be able to get the money for it.

[beechnut]

Avman
I think with both types in your log book you will have the feel for 2 different types. I would opt for about 10 hours in the 180 as that won't be to hard on the financial side. You should feel comfortable in both machines. Good luck
Beechnut

[polar one]

172 180? With either 50 hour course and $3.00 you can ride any bus in Toronto.

Save a whole bunch of your money. Get you 7 hour or whatever float rating. And thats it. How much difference will it make. Unless insurance is an issue , which at 50 hours it usually is not, the company will give you training (mandatory) and you will get 50 hours of experience in a matter of a few weeks.

On the other hand if you have a whole bunch of money burning a hole in your pocket then the 50 hour "bush" course is for you. But as was mentioned before, check out who is instructing you, not just if they have any experienced instructors on staff. The whole 172/180 thing is a bit of a red herring. Any bush operator hiring a low time pilot is looking for personality characterisitcs and not flying experience..a 50 hr bush course just doesnt cut it....IMO

[Cat Driver]

.a 50 hr bush course just doesnt cut it....IMO

There are no experienced bush pilots in Canada who could teach someone valuable flying lessons in fifty hours?

If there are why would their training have no value?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The sad fact is the insurance companies run aviation now. While everybody knows there is little practical difference between the C172 XP and the C180 , the insurance guys only look for "time on type", and 50 hours on type does seem to be an insurance "magic number". Therefor IMO you are more employable with 50 hrs of 180 time.
There have been a lot of folks disparaging the 50 hour flost courses, but I am personally in favour of them. The reality is in the past when everybody just showed up with the bare 7 hr rating, a lot time guys ended up learning on the job by trial and error. More than a few killed themselves in the process. A 50 hour course done right is excellent preparation for the reality of that first commercial float flying job. The key though is the instructor. He/she must not only be an effective instructor, they must have lots of real world commercial flying experience, I would say a minimum of 500 hrs in 703 operations but ideally in the multiple thousand hours. This is one area you really have to do your homework as this course is only is good as the instructor

[polar one]

50 hours on type does seem to be an insurance "magic number".

My experience differs from this. Where did you get this fact?

More than a few killed themselves in the process. A 50 hour course done right is excellent preparation for the reality of that first commercial float flying job.

Another fact? Care to share where you got that information from and exactly how it was a lack of training issue?
You have qualified a course as being "done right". Want to be specific...more than just done by an experienced instructor...or is that all it takes.

As to Cat's comments. I am not against training whatsoever, and I think I mentioned that when I noted instructor qualifications. The point I was trying to make is that 50 hours, in the great scheme of things is really not that much.
50 hours of supervised, on line flying, is, in my opinion, every bit as good as a 50 hour bush course. I have seen in the past where bush course students waited on tables for the operator, and have seen low time instructors with less than 50 hours on floats themselves, instructing on these courses. Again, an experienced pilot who can also teach is invaluable.
And having one every morning on the dock when you are line flying as a resource is also invaluable.

[shannon]

I'm curious to hear what a CP, Owner or even a graduate of a fifty hour course has to say about their value.

[Big Pistons Forever]

50 hours on type does seem to be an insurance "magic number".

My experience differs from this. Where did you get this fact?

More than a few killed themselves in the process. A 50 hour course done right is excellent preparation for the reality of that first commercial float flying job.

Another fact? Care to share where you got that information from and exactly how it was a lack of training issue?
You have qualified a course as being "done right". Want to be specific...more than just done by an experienced instructor...or is that all it takes.

As to Cat's comments. I am not against training whatsoever, and I think I mentioned that when I noted instructor qualifications. The point I was trying to make is that 50 hours, in the great scheme of things is really not that much.
50 hours of supervised, on line flying, is, in my opinion, every bit as good as a 50 hour bush course. I have seen in the past where bush course students waited on tables for the operator, and have seen low time instructors with less than 50 hours on floats themselves, instructing on these courses. Again, an experienced pilot who can also teach is invaluable.
And having one every morning on the dock when you are line flying as a resource is also invaluable.

Absolutely, if you get it. But "supervised" only means something if what is happening is that an experienced training captain accompany you in the airplane for the 50 hrs, which can be problematical since it means he/she will be occupying one of the three revenue seats in the airplane, thus there is a lot of pressure to leave someone out of the airplane to accomodate paying passengers. Not to mention the routes flown on the line endoc will be driven by the airplane dispatching meaning you could end up with 1 hour 50 times. Finally you are still going to get a line indoc, when you show up with your 50 hrs, but if you allready have a good grasp of the fundamentals it will be shorter and probably of more value. I am not interested in getting into a big argument over this so I will reiterate my original comment on the importance of doing your homework before commencing any training

[cessnafloatflyer]

I'm curious to hear what a CP, Owner or even a graduate of a fifty hour course has to say about their value.

I have a pile of emails from past students of mine who not only think that the 50 hour course they took with me helped them get their first job, but also kept them safe out there. I'm not talking about 1 pilot, but many. So, there is proof. Operators are looking for experience and personality as well as pilots who have a solid foundation. Operators also have a lot of resumes on their desks and are looking for references from pilots who trainied them who they trust from past experience and hours to boot.

[kevinsky18]

I'm not advertising for pilots, I don't need pilots but none the less I get on average 3 resumes a day. If I actually put out an ad that number of resumes would shoot up to about 300 a day.

Here's the break down of what those resumes look like.
80% have no seaplane rating - guess where their resume gets filed?
16% have basic seaplane ratings and varying degrees of other time. I set them aside in one pile.
2% have 50 hours or more of float time. They also get sorted into their own pile.

Now if the day ever comes that I was in a position to be able to hire staff and I need a pilot the next day to fill in for me because I broke my leg or whatever who do you think is going to get the call first? Do you want to be part of the 80% club in the waste basket, the 16% club who there's no way I'm going to be able to get up to speed in a day or two or the top 2% that actually have some extra float training and have the potential hop in and go with some guidance and a basic check out?

And before you say well only 2% have 50 hours of floats so I might have a chance with a 7 hour rating, do the math and think again. 3 resumes a day x 365days in a year = 1095resumes x .02 = 22 resumes with 50+ hours. I don't want to go through hundreds or thousands of resumes. I'm going to pick up the stack of 22 with fifty hours and start there even if it's for a doc/ramp job. I've done the hiring and firing before and I can tell you it's not too often that I get past resume #5 before I have someone interested in coming to work so 22 resumes is more than enough. The 7 hour guys just wouldn't even get a call.

And yes insurance cares how much time your pilots have. Yes you can spend $20,000 on insurance that lets you pick any pilot you want to fly your Cessna 180/182/185 plane. Or you can spend $7000 on insurance that stipulates your pilots must have 50 hours on type. For many small operators in these tight times it only makes sense to take the less expensive insurance.

Sure when times are booming and all you can get is 7 hour guys then yes you have to pay the hirer insurance but in theory times are booming and you can afford the higher rates. However, right now we are in a recession and every operator has a stack of resumes on their desk and are facing tighter profit margins. In short, they aren't going to pay for the higher insurance premiums when they can't afford them.

[Cat Driver]

If I had two applicants for a float plane position and one had fifty hours total time on floats with only a seven hour rating training wise and the other had a fifty hour bush flying course.

My first concern would be who was the instructor on the fifty hour course.

If the course was taught by an experienced bush pilot with a known record of turning out a quality product that would be the one I would hire.

This is not black magic kids, it is common sense which seems to be getting more difficult to find in flight training these days.

Bottom line is don't be jerked off by people who are selling you something, do your home work and find a good teacher who has a known track record.

[polar one]

well I am going to defer to all those who feel the 50 hr course is magic, with the two simple caveats that it will not help with our company. The second, as a few have already pointed out, is to very carefully check out the qualiications of who is teaching you...teaching experience is secondary to real operational bush experience, and, which has not been mentioned, check out to se exactly what you are going to be doing for the 50 hours. I have not really seen anyone post exactly why this extra 43 hours is so super important.

[Cat Driver]

well I am going to defer to all those who feel the 50 hr course is magic, with the two simple caveats that it will not help with our company.

Your company may be depriving its self of the opportunity to hire someone who would come on line with some valuable knowledge polar one if that is your policy.

If I were to ever go back to doing skills upgrading training again and a pilot were to receive training from me for the purpose of getting their first float flying position the pilot would have a training log with every hour accounted for and the type of flying that was done on that lesson. For instance a training flight would be done exactly as would be done during commercial operations with the trips planned to fly into and out of any location here on the west coast in the same weather conditions as if the trip were being done for a commercial operator.

If the pilot met the standards that I personally feel is necessary for me to recommend them they would then have not only their training record but my personal recommendation.

My recommendation may not be of any value to you or your company but I am willing to bet it would carry weight with a lot of other companies.

So once again for those who want to take advanced training for the purpose of getting their first job there are many teachers out there who are well known in the industry and learning from them is of real value to your success and safety as you start your career.

Of course like everything on the internet you should remember the above is only my personal opinion.

[avman]

I appreciate everyone's comments. Didn't mean to start a debate.haha. I do believe the course will be valuable and I had already decided to take it, just wanted thoughts on the 180 vs the 172 XP. Although I don't claim to know a lot about the industry, it would seem to me that the 50 hour course would teach me a lot more than the 7 hour minimum and although I haven't started looking for a job yet, a friend of mine working did say that there are still alot of operators that have the insurance requirements of 50 hours. Thanks again!

[Rowdy]

Fly the 172XP predominantly.. BUT get checked out and put 10hrs or so on the 180. I dont know of many places that operate 172s commercially on floats. However there are a ton that fly the 180. Being at least familiar with it will help.

I was hired for my first float job as I had some 180 time and the owner liked my sense of humour. Take that for what its worth.

[cessnafloatflyer]

What would you say if i told you, a student could fly 50 hours in an excellent 180 on the West Coast with instructors that have 15000 hours between the two of them for a few hundred dollars more than the 172xp as advertised mostly on Salt water. Would the 180 for the whole time be worth it then?

[buck82]

I have to say I never found it difficult stepping out of a 172/citabria/supercub and directly into a beaver. The myth that you need to fly a 180 then 185, and maybe 206 before you can get into a beaver is exactly that. Log as many hours as you can afford then get checked out on the plane you are trying to get the job in. It's the time in a float plane that builds experience in the beginning. The more you do something (correctly i might add), the better you are going to become at it. Provided the level of instruction is equal, whether you do your first hours in a 172, 180 or beaver, the only thing that is different is the $$ you're going to spend. Frankly there are some skills that can be very well taught in a slightly underpowered floatplane; things that you need to know before you get into a bigger machine at gross weight.

[cessnafloatflyer]

Frankly there are some skills that can be very well taught in a slightly underpowered floatplane; things that you need to know before you get into a bigger machine at gross weight

I'm not sure you can call a 172 that has 195hp and constant speed underpowered.

[Lost Lake]

I'm not sure you can call a 172 that has 195hp and constant speed underpowered.

Hmm.. 195 hp - laminar wing, 450hp - STOL wing

Yes it's underpowered in certain instances, ie, small lakes, heavy loads, high density altitude.

[Rowdy]

I have to say I never found it difficult stepping out of a 172/citabria/supercub and directly into a beaver. The myth that you need to fly a 180 then 185, and maybe 206 before you can get into a beaver is exactly that. Log as many hours as you can afford then get checked out on the plane you are trying to get the job in. It's the time in a float plane that builds experience in the beginning. The more you do something (correctly i might add), the better you are going to become at it. Provided the level of instruction is equal, whether you do your first hours in a 172, 180 or beaver, the only thing that is different is the $$ you're going to spend. Frankly there are some skills that can be very well taught in a slightly underpowered floatplane; things that you need to know before you get into a bigger machine at gross weight.

Haha if anything one should learn on the beaver, get some experience on floats and THEN get in the 185!!

[mr.jinks]

I wouldn't really consider the 172xp underpowered, The wing on the 172 is a NACA2412, same wing on the 185, norseman.. and most cessna's, the laminar wing was mounted to the 177 and 210 airframes on the cessnas, and I don't imagine they performed very well. I haven't flown the hawk xp but having been around a few of them over the years, they seem to be very similar to the 180 in terms of performance. The most difficult floatplane I have ever flown was an Aeronca Chief on small Edo floats. It took alot of finesse and skill to get that thing to fly, especially when it was warmish out and the wind was light. It made a J3 with the same engine seem like an absolute rocketship when comparing takeoff performance. Anyway, I would take the more underpowered airplane for learning over the high performance airplane. It'll make you a better pilot IMO