Starting Pay?

Reply Subscribe

Page 1 of 2

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

08-29-2007, 07:34 PM

WMUPilot

Gets Weekends Off

Thread Starter

Joined APC: Mar 2007

Position: Ungh... I sign the log

Posts: 119

Starting Pay?

Hey there,
I recently interviewed for an F/O job in an MU-2. Job description is standard F/O responsibilities plus maintaining the aircraft, and running the flight dept. Such as; scheduling maint. making reservations for cars, hotels, etc for clients and/or VP and CEO. I believe this to be semi normal for a Corp. Pilot but I am curious what a low-time, newbie into this aviation sector could expect. Any information would be greatly appreciated!

08-29-2007, 08:21 PM

FlyerJosh

Chief Jeppesen Updater

Joined APC: Oct 2005

Position: Executive Transport Driver

Posts: 3,080

Depending on the type of operation (91 vs 135) an MU-2 FO would make somewhere in the vicinity of 24000-40000.

I don't however consider some of the tasks that you list to be "FO" duties (such as scheduling maintenance). Basic cleaning and maintenance, maybe making hotel/car/travel arrangements, and some basic paperwork are FO stuff.

08-30-2007, 10:10 AM

Derrick Driver

On Reserve

Joined APC: Aug 2007

Position: Captain corporate

Posts: 16

Good way to start, but I really dont know what kind of latitude you have here, if you know what I mean...

Sounds like someone's shoving off a huge amount of collateral duties to the FNG.

08-30-2007, 01:33 PM

geosynchronous

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Aug 2007

Position: Corporate Captain

Posts: 164

Professional Pilot , June, 2007 has the (135) average MU2 F/O pay at $28,000. No 91 average fro F/O was published.

The MU2 has a history of killing people. If this represents the only gig in town for you, be careful. Today's market has many alternatives.

www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/mu2_0206.xml -

08-30-2007, 02:31 PM

VTcharter

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2006

Posts: 259

Quote:

Originally Posted by geosynchronous

The MU2 has a "history of killing people" who don't operate it within its operating envelope and don't follow the proper emergency procedures. The EP's are very important with this airplane, as the flight characteristics are very different from the vast majority of other twins in emergency situations such as engine outs...especially on take-off. This does not make the aircraft unsafe, just means that people need to pay a bit more attention to detail in the way that it is trained and flown as the "fudge factor" is much less forgiving than it is on other airplanes.

Last edited by VTcharter; 08-30-2007 at 02:32 PM. Reason: spelling

09-04-2007, 06:25 AM

geosynchronous

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Aug 2007

Position: Corporate Captain

Posts: 164

Excerpts from the FAA MU-2B Series FAA Airplane Safety Evaluation Report, December, 2005.

When compared to similar turboprops...

Accident rate is about twice as high as with the fatal rate- about 2.5 times higher
Fatal accident rates in icing conditions are four times higher
Fatal accidents involving loss of control on initial climb is 3.5 times higher
Fatal accidents involving loss of control while in flight is 3.5 times higher
Fatal accidents involving loss of control during emergencies is seven times higher.

The FAA has acknowledged that the MU2 necessitates a unique skill set when it pertains to pilot certification, training, and experience. The FAA has never been particularly proactive. They are historically reactive, and this is the reaction that the FAA has published after they noticed the history of the MU2 aircraft "killing" people.

Anyone can make a subjective argument on the MU2. The statistics are the proof in the pudding.

09-04-2007, 07:42 AM

Ewfflyer

Flying Farmer

Joined APC: Jul 2006

Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's

Posts: 3,160

Quote:

Originally Posted by geosynchronous

Excerpts from the FAA MU-2B Series FAA Airplane Safety Evaluation Report, December, 2005.

When compared to similar turboprops...

Accident rate is about twice as high as with the fatal rate- about 2.5 times higher
Fatal accident rates in icing conditions are four times higher
Fatal accidents involving loss of control on initial climb is 3.5 times higher
Fatal accidents involving loss of control while in flight is 3.5 times higher
Fatal accidents involving loss of control during emergencies is seven times higher.

SUV's, guns, water, etc... kill people too, but is it really the fault of that object?

My thing is the MU-2 is a special craft that bites hard when provoked. On another note, look what it's purpose has been in the last 10yrs, night-freight. Some of the hardest flying most pilots will never experience. I don't know what the best route would be as far as training, but definately a thorough and periodic check-ride wouldn't hurt anyone. There's always nay-sayers, so I'll just leave it that you can't please everyone!

09-04-2007, 10:31 AM

geosynchronous

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Aug 2007

Position: Corporate Captain

Posts: 164

The good thing here is that WMUPilot has been enlightened about the complexities of the MU2 and that he/she can make an educated decision on which career path to follow, and train that much more aggressively if he/she decides to take the MU2 job.

Red flags are raised when you see the self proclaimed statements "low time" and "newbie" and "MU2" all in one paragraph.

Semantics and subjective argument aside, the facts, statistics, and the 37 year history of the aircraft speak for themselves. Man is 2.6 million years old. He has only been flying airplanes for 104 of those years. Human fallibility will always be an issue. On that note, yes, you can blame the object, if another object has a 2.5X better recovery/survival rate.

Fly safe!

09-05-2007, 02:16 PM

GauleyPilot

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2006

Position: BE-20, RA390

Posts: 644

Quote:

Originally Posted by WMUPilot

Is the PIC the Owner of the company or something?

The reason I ask is not too many FOs "run the flight department". Cleaning and stocking the aircraft, arranging hotels/cars/catering sound like the FO realm. While it is normal for the FO to have contact with the maintenance base, it has not been my experience that the FO is the primary point of contact when it comes to maintenance.

09-06-2007, 06:00 PM

#10

WMUPilot

Gets Weekends Off

Thread Starter

Joined APC: Mar 2007

Position: Ungh... I sign the log

Posts: 119

The PIC is not the owner of the company. He is an older man who has been flying and maintaining this particular airplane for the last 20 years. He is a one man show with one airplane. I flew with him today and found him to be very, shall we say, "set in his ways." He has been the one man crew and does very well at it. And they company doesn't care about his ways as well as he gets them where they want to go and keeps up the airplane.