Originally Posted by
November Seven
Ok, so here's one area where I have received conflicting advise. Help me hash it out. On the one hand, pilots have told me that they could actually move over to a twin immediately after the Instrument Rating. They say that it jump starts their Multi-Time and gets them up and flying something with more than one engine rapidly. They say to do it initially with a Flight Instructor for the actual Multi-Engine Training part and then with a Flight Buddy who holds legal PIC for each flight while I gain the experience before taking the Multi-Engine written/oral/flight.
What I hear you saying is different. You are saying stick with ASEL for several hundred then add-on Multi-Engine - which in my case means 'then' go out a buy a Twin. I get it. I just want to know why such significant difference in approach to the same goal? I don't have a problem doing it either way. I want to do it as fast as possible, but I won't sacrifice long-term safety or competence.
You could go right to a twin after PPL, some career pilot programs do that in order to maximize resume-enhancing ME time, but typically the student ALWAYS flies with a CFI. Few or no schools are insured to let student pilots solo in a twin. MEI's typically need several hundred hours ME time to get insured to teach. In your case you don't need baby-sat ME time on your resume, you just need to be safe.
If you jump right to a twin, I would not solo it for at least a hundred hours. They're not hard to fly at all, but you need to be pretty comfortable with aviation in general in order to survive an engine-out at a bad moment in a light piston twin. Many people don't.
If you're going to do many hundreds or even 1000+ hours in GA, you don't need to rush right into a twin.
Originally Posted by
November Seven
I thought about this and I initially thought it was too big a jump, quite honestly. I was thinking, why not just take delivery of the VLJ and fly with someone Typed in that aircraft from Multi-Engine until I'm ready to be released into the wild in my own as PIC (meeting all the insurance requirements, etc.) while retaining that same person now as Mentor/Advisor/Check Pilot, whatever you want call them.
Again, it just seem like too big a jump and I sort of get the feeling that I run the risk of becoming too psychologically dependent on my "Mentor" to get me out of trouble. The other thing I thought about in this regard was the lack of platform experience (flying other aircraft) which steals from the depth and breadth thing everybody talks about as being good for a pilot. Coming up through the ranks of slower, more laborious aircraft types, first. I don't know how much of that is true.
I agree, having more diversity in your time building will give you more confidence, to say nothing of hundreds of hours of actual PIC experience in GA. Plus you'll appreciate the jet more
Originally Posted by
November Seven
Yes - so, this was my other dilemma. Was it more important that I did my self-paced time building in a "Twin Turbo-Prop" having conventional instruments -or- any "Twin" having full EFIS? To make things more difficult to figure out, I've even seen a Cessna Citation 525/CJ1 that cost less on the used market than some used Barons that have been heavily retrofitted. Yet, the Citation 525/CJ1 had GNS 530 WAAS, while the Baron had G1000 (though I just found a 2001 CJ1 with Collins Proline for the same price as a highly retrofitted Baron G58). On the used market, the avionics can really drive price to the point where performance per dollar spent takes on a whole new meaning.
I would think it would be much easier to transition from a Citation 525/CJ1 to a Citation IV or Phenom 300. But, I'd still be left with the same question: What fills the gap between the Citation CJ1 as the primary Time Builder and the Cessna 182 or Cirrus SR22 as the basic Trainer. Seems to me that I'd still be looking at something more advanced/complex/heavier/faster than an SR22.
So, in this scenario it would seem to be something like:
- Cessna 182 Basic Trainer (Conventional Instruments).
- Baron Multi-Engine & 1st Complex Transition (G1000).
- CJ1 Multi-Engine Jet & 2nd Complex Transition (Conventional or EFIS).
- CJ4 (Collins Proline 21) or Phenom 300 (G3000) 3rd and final Transition.
What do you think?
I don't think you need a turboprop in there. It would add more diversity to your background, but probably not much value added. Turboprops are a different branch of the evolutionary tree. I think a fast prop twin would be good enough. If you want experience flying fast, fly the prop twin fast on arrivals/approaches... it will do that. You don't need experience flying fast in cruise flight.
Originally Posted by
November Seven
Given a good self-paced disciplined approach, I don't have a problem extending my projections out to 3,500hrs TT w/1,500 Jet or Turbo-Prop before attempting permanent single-pilot PIC in a VLJ. In fact, I won't mind bumping that up to 4,000 TT and 2,000 Jet/Turbo-Prop. Or, higher if necessary. I just want to be safe and turbine proficient once I get to the VLJ.
Can't fault that.