Originally Posted by
jonnyjetprop
The value of multiengine time is two fold. First, if you don't meet the hiring minimums, you'll never get to explain why it shouldn't count so highly. Second is that you'll have to overcome any bias that the interviewer has toward the question. Interviewers tend to hire those pilots who look like themselves. If the guy who interviews you has alot of multi time, good luck trying to explain it to him. You may find this will be the biggest hurdle to overcome.
Thanks for your post. I do see what you are saying, and yes that does make sense..
I'm an MEI so I'm not worried about have the multi time or not. I just don't feel like I'm that much more capable of flying 135/121 because of that experience. Especially the straight and level stuff. The most challenging flying I've done is in the order I listed in the original post. Of course combinations thereof add to that (dual, IMC, at night, in a high performance, complex aircraft)
With money being finite, I don't see why folks would spend, say $5,000 on 25-30 hrs multi versus 60-80 hrs actual or night, etc.
Hour for hour I feel wiser and better prepared for having gotten actual than multi. Without a shred of doubt. Multi DOES have it's challenges, and one must always being thinking about what to do in case of an engine out, and the systems are more challenging than in a C-172.
But I feel much more exhausted after an actual IMC flight, ESPECIALLY giving dual. So much to keep track of, and keep the nerves in check as the student nearly puts us into an unusual attitude whilst nearly busting our altitude, missing ATC calls, and then zig zags down the ILS (did that yesterday).
It's amazing how a student with lots of hood time will get into the clouds for the first time and they act almost as if they haven't had but an hour of simulated instruments. (see the saving people from themselves as my listed postion).