Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Flight Schools and Training
From Zero to VLJ | How Would You Do It? >

From Zero to VLJ | How Would You Do It?

Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

From Zero to VLJ | How Would You Do It?

Old 02-27-2018, 10:04 AM
  #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 99
Default From Zero to VLJ | How Would You Do It?

Hello APC,

If you had the dream of owning a very light jet and were now able to start the long process of living that dream, how would you go about obtaining the skill, knowledge and expertise required as a pilot?

I'm finally getting ready for either a CJ4, Phenom 300 or waiting for the PC24. Based on my initial research, I've given myself 2-years of dedicated Flight Training and Time Building. I'll do more of more is necessary.

I'm reaching out for opinions and ideas about how to make this happen. You don't have to own a VLJ yourself. Maybe you work for someone and fly the CJ4 or Phenom 300 routinely. You know what's required to operate those aircraft safely in Single-Pilot/RVSM operations.

Actually, I have 4 flight training hours, but that was more than 20 years ago. Thus, I certainly consider this "From Zero." I've remained close to aviation throughout the years - never became estranged from GA, just never got all my ratings either.

I have some ideas for how to go about accomplishing this, but I'm obviously looking for better ideas. Here's what I've come up with - let me know what you would change, or if you would do things entirely different:

1) Go through Private & Instrument ground school videos from two different sources (in my case King and Jeppesen) on a self-study (at home) basis as an initial method of priming the pump. Obtain PAR-ACS/IRA publications and study/self-test to that new standard. This would complete a self-paced Re-Introduction to Flight Training, so to speak. Just something to re-crack the ice for lack of a better way to put it. Getting back in the groove on my own.

2) Actual Flight Training - Private. Either 141 or 61. Oral/Written/Flight to ACS Certificate. Actual Flight Training - Instrument. Either 141 or 61. Oral/Written/Flight to IRA. Actual Flight Training - Commercial & Multi-Engine. Oral/Written/Flight.

3) Multi-Engine Turbo-Prop Time as PIC in IFR. Work for third-party flying scheduled multi-engine turbo-prop. Acquire personal multi-engine turbo-prop and create weekly flight schedule including Day/Night IFR (Mon-Fri) plus one (1) cross-country with overnight stay per week. Scheduled flight plans include regular flights into IMC and High Density Altitude airports (Class B & C) - progressively during congested period.

4) Transition to VLJ.


The section I'm hung-up on right now is #3. I've heard of people going from a personally owned TBM straight to a Phenom 300 never skipping a beat and very happy they did it that way. However, they had been flying many different aircraft for years prior to getting into the TBM. I won't have that depth of aircraft type under my belt and so going from TBM to VLJ, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

So, what I'm thinking is this - buy a Twin immediately after completion of the Instrument Rating, obtain the Multi-Engine Rating in that Twin and then proceed to build-out personal flight schedules according to #3 until 1,500 2,000 hours - then make the transition. If that's right, the question becomes: Which Twin do I buy?

Cessna Conquest II?
Beechcraft Baron G58?
Beechcraft C90?

You can find all three of these aircraft (used) at around the same price point depending on year, condition and equipment. The odd-ball out is the Baron, as it is not Turbo-Prop and its the turbine time that I'd really be going after. I've seen Conquests and C90s in various states of condition and repair. Otherwise, I'd have to work for someone else to acquire the time/experience and I won't get the same level of flexibility in making custom Weekly Flight Plans towards 1,500 to 2,000 hours.

I need some additional ideas here. What did I miss? Do you have a better path to follow? Also, does 141 training fit better than 61 training for something like this?

Thanks!
November Seven is offline  
Old 02-27-2018, 11:08 AM
  #2  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Deadly serious, no pun intended...

It can be done, but if you want to survive your hobby you're going to need to take a very professional approach, Jets aren't for Kids. Sounds like you have a reasonable grasp of that, and good expectations of your way-ahead.

Get your PPL and Instrument Rating in a light single engine plane. A cirrus is probably about right, fast and modern instruments. If you or your instructor doesn't think starting out in a cirrus is a good idea, then start in a cessna or piper and transition to the cirrus after PPL and about 100 hours.

Fly a few hundred hours ASEL. Then get a multi add-on, and start flying a twin, preferably something sporty like a Baron with glass instruments. Shoot for 1000 hours total time. That's the threshold at which a professional pilot becomes insurable as an SIC

While building prop experience, fly IFR as much as possible, limit IMC/weather to your comfort zone and the capabilities of the plane.

At this point you could move up to a turboprop, but that's going to add some complexity that's not even present in a jet, so you could probably start training on the jet at this point, although getting an honest assessment of your skills by an experienced jet instructor would be wise.

If you end up doing the twin turboprop thing for a while, use something with glass instruments and FADEC, since that's more similar to a jet.

The jet mfg. will have a recommended or mandatory course of instruction, and insurance will weigh in on that as well. You'll have to fly X number of hours with a qualified instructor or other pilot with experience in type. I would suggest doubling the number of hours the insurance requires.

Insurance will probably require annual recurrent training... you'll want that regardless. You should carefully review all of the memory items EVERY time before you go fly. Recency of experience is vital, flying at least once or twice a week, especially for the first few hundred solo hours will greatly aid in making your skills second nature and preventing degradation between recurrent sessions.

If you're going to undertake a challenging mission, hire an instructor or pro to sit right seat as a backup.

That's what I'd do in your shoes, knowing what I know now.

For perspective, airline pilots need 1500 hours to serve as SIC on a jet, and 2500 hours and 1000 hours or turbine experience to serve as PIC. And that's in a very structured system where you have dispatchers looking out for you to a degree.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-27-2018, 04:40 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,168
Default

I’d add, if you review a accident reports of non-professionally flown light jets, the theme is poor risk assessments. The mechanical “flying” parts, take-off, landing, flying approaches in decent weather, can be learned easily enough. Things go south when the pilot is trying to operate at night, or in bad weather, with work or passenger demands begin an unhealthy bending of risk-reward ratio. Airmanship, the ability to say, “this is too much”; to be honest about ability to meet the situation is the hard to teach and harder to learn. There’s also a record of depending on technology to deal with situations where the pilot is in over their head believing this mach8ne can do it for me.

A friend is the pro pilot who has flown with his owner/pilot for a number of years. They went from a light twin, thru a King Air to a super mid-size jet. Even now, my friend has to say, “wtf” every once in awhile to a request. Recently, the owner hired a second pilot.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 02-28-2018, 06:24 AM
  #4  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
I’d add, if you review a accident reports of non-professionally flown light jets, the theme is poor risk assessments. The mechanical “flying” parts, take-off, landing, flying approaches in decent weather, can be learned easily enough. Things go south when the pilot is trying to operate at night, or in bad weather, with work or passenger demands begin an unhealthy bending of risk-reward ratio. Airmanship, the ability to say, “this is too much”; to be honest about ability to meet the situation is the hard to teach and harder to learn. There’s also a record of depending on technology to deal with situations where the pilot is in over their head believing this mach8ne can do it for me.

A friend is the pro pilot who has flown with his owner/pilot for a number of years. They went from a light twin, thru a King Air to a super mid-size jet. Even now, my friend has to say, “wtf” every once in awhile to a request. Recently, the owner hired a second pilot.

GF
This should be part of entry-level flight training now days, but the OP should pay careful attention and apply the principles scrupulously.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-28-2018, 12:17 PM
  #5  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 99
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Deadly serious, no pun intended...

It can be done, but if you want to survive your hobby you're going to need to take a very professional approach, Jets aren't for Kids. Sounds like you have a reasonable grasp of that, and good expectations of your way-ahead.

Get your PPL and Instrument Rating in a light single engine plane. A cirrus is probably about right, fast and modern instruments. If you or your instructor doesn't think starting out in a cirrus is a good idea, then start in a cessna or piper and transition to the cirrus after PPL and about 100 hours.

Fly a few hundred hours ASEL. Then get a multi add-on, and start flying a twin, preferably something sporty like a Baron with glass instruments. Shoot for 1000 hours total time. That's the threshold at which a professional pilot becomes insurable as an SIC

While building prop experience, fly IFR as much as possible, limit IMC/weather to your comfort zone and the capabilities of the plane.

At this point you could move up to a turboprop, but that's going to add some complexity that's not even present in a jet, so you could probably start training on the jet at this point, although getting an honest assessment of your skills by an experienced jet instructor would be wise.

If you end up doing the twin turboprop thing for a while, use something with glass instruments and FADEC, since that's more similar to a jet.

The jet mfg. will have a recommended or mandatory course of instruction, and insurance will weigh in on that as well. You'll have to fly X number of hours with a qualified instructor or other pilot with experience in type. I would suggest doubling the number of hours the insurance requires.

Insurance will probably require annual recurrent training... you'll want that regardless. You should carefully review all of the memory items EVERY time before you go fly. Recency of experience is vital, flying at least once or twice a week, especially for the first few hundred solo hours will greatly aid in making your skills second nature and preventing degradation between recurrent sessions.

If you're going to undertake a challenging mission, hire an instructor or pro to sit right seat as a backup.

That's what I'd do in your shoes, knowing what I know now.

For perspective, airline pilots need 1500 hours to serve as SIC on a jet, and 2500 hours and 1000 hours or turbine experience to serve as PIC. And that's in a very structured system where you have dispatchers looking out for you to a degree.

Very interesting and thanks for taking the time to post it. When I start this, it won't be with the hobbyist mentality. It will be my Job to become a proficient VLJ single-pilot. My business will shift to part-time (because I can) and my flying will shift to full-time. So, I'll have roughly 8 hours per day Mon-Fri to do whatever it takes.

Sat & Sun, I'd like to spend with my Wife. Then Monday morning, back to all things airplanes. So, no hobby mind here. Just a self-disciplined approach. I'd prefer USAF Flight Training in UPT, but that is not going to happen.

It all seems like pretty good advice and I understood it, which means I'm thinking right. In fact, I understood it so well - that I have questions, if you don't mind following up.

1)
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
"Fly a few hundred hours ASEL. Then get a multi add-on, and start flying a twin, preferably something sporty like a Baron with glass instruments."
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.



2)
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
At this point you could move up to a turboprop, but that's going to add some complexity that's not even present in a jet, so you could probably start training on the jet at this point, although getting an honest assessment of your skills by an experienced jet instructor would be wise.
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.


3)
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
If you end up doing the twin turboprop thing for a while, use something with glass instruments and FADEC, since that's more similar to a jet.
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?


4)
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
For perspective, airline pilots need 1500 hours to serve as SIC on a jet, and 2500 hours and 1000 hours or turbine experience to serve as PIC. And that's in a very structured system where you have dispatchers looking out for you to a degree.
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.

Thanks again!
November Seven is offline  
Old 02-28-2018, 12:28 PM
  #6  
Permanent Reserve
 
navigatro's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,672
Default

you sound rich. hire a professional pilot to fly with you the first 500 hours so your family doesn't lose you to some stupid accident. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but don't end up like JFK Jr.
navigatro is offline  
Old 02-28-2018, 01:26 PM
  #7  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 99
Default

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
I’d add, if you review a accident reports of non-professionally flown light jets, the theme is poor risk assessments. The mechanical “flying” parts, take-off, landing, flying approaches in decent weather, can be learned easily enough. Things go south when the pilot is trying to operate at night, or in bad weather, with work or passenger demands begin an unhealthy bending of risk-reward ratio. Airmanship, the ability to say, “this is too much”; to be honest about ability to meet the situation is the hard to teach and harder to learn. There’s also a record of depending on technology to deal with situations where the pilot is in over their head believing this mach8ne can do it for me.

A friend is the pro pilot who has flown with his owner/pilot for a number of years. They went from a light twin, thru a King Air to a super mid-size jet. Even now, my friend has to say, “wtf” every once in awhile to a request. Recently, the owner hired a second pilot.

GF
All interesting and sobering points. Thanks.

Part of the self-paced Time Building Phase would be scheduled IFR with progressive IMC conditions including overnight stays and a specific number of night take-offs and night landings - inclusive of at least one flight having an outbound leg >= 500 into Class Bravo during peak hours. The operative word here is "progressively." Easing into flights that are more complex, involve more night ops and more Class Bravo during peak periods (including HDA airports). Wash/rinse/repeat Monday through Friday. That's where I expect most of my total time to come from.

I will do Time Building on a Schedule, so I can experience what trying to keep a schedule is like before flying single pilot in a VLJ. Everything I do will be purpose built and scheduled with progressive steps in mind. My Training Grounds will be from California, North to Vancouver, East to Colorado and South to Los Cabos. Within that radius, I can schedule flights over just about every kind of terrain possible including over water and into the mountains - good cross-wind landings and departures out of YVR as well.

As the aircraft I fly increases in capability and my skills increase along with it, I'll extend the radius until I reach Telluride Regional, Los Cabos International and Vancouver International, as a matter of routine course. All airports within that triangle will be potential time building destinations. This area will become my new "backyard" so to speak. My stomping grounds.

Essentially, I'd like to simulate what a 135 guy/gal does on a weekly basis, but increment the difficulty predicated solely upon my skill level at the time. I don't know how many hours a 135 pilot flies each week (I'll have to look into that). But, I'd like to equal or exceed the kind of hours they fly each week in my personal scheduled flights. So, basically, time building becomes my new full-time job. My primary focus.

In terms of my IFR flight planning, I'd want to start out as organic as possible using old school tools whenever and wherever possible. I wish to remain as organic in flight planning and the avionics I use as possible. Example - I can see how easy it is to allow the FMC to calculate TOD for you. I want to become proficient at calculating TOD manual and hand flying it without busting a floor or ceiling. I see how the FMS and AP combine to fly the Hold for the pilot. I want to be able to fly the Hold manually and in true IMC.

As single pilot, I would feel as though I had a higher responsibility to be more proficient than the regulations or an insurance company calls for. So, I need to grind on old school fundamentals for a while. The "tech" will always be there and I can learn that soon enough. I'm in no hurry to rush into the "tech." But, I'm much more interested in learning how to fly from VOR/DME to VOR/DME in the clouds without getting confused about my aircraft's position relative to my final destination en route - and without nice Glass helping me.

I once read that an Aviator was different than a Pilot. I guess I want to be an Aviator. The all-around Pilot. The guy who just grinds on Fundamentals. Believe it or not, it was Mr. Bob Hoover, who inspired this in me a long time ago. I met him and his Commander at an airshow back in 89'. I knew then that Proficiency was the key to longevity as a Pilot. However, I would consider Bob, an Aviator. I think that fits him a whole lot better. That's the level I'm shooting for.

I've done study on NTSB accident reports involving Prop Single Pilot and Jet Single Pilot. You are right - I do see a "pattern" there as well. When an 11,000 hour pilot loses control of a Phenom 300 on approach to landing, it sends chills down my spine and makes me wonder what the hell I'd be getting myself into. I think to myself, how could that happen? How could someone with all those flight hours end up in that position. It is sobering. That's why I'm taking my Training and Time Building very seriously. Serious enough to map it out before I do it.

I'm interested in a lot of different opinions.
November Seven is offline  
Old 02-28-2018, 01:29 PM
  #8  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 99
Default

Originally Posted by navigatro View Post
you sound rich. hire a professional pilot to fly with you the first 500 hours so your family doesn't lose you to some stupid accident. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but don't end up like JFK Jr.
Thanks for the advice. I'll try not to do that while focusing on the Fundamental of Instrument Flying and trying to become as proficient as I can before heading off into the wilds of single pilot VLJ.
November Seven is offline  
Old 02-28-2018, 03:47 PM
  #9  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by November Seven View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:51 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,168
Default

The NBAA, AOPA and the Bombardier Safety Standdowns put on single-pilot seminars, CRM training for single-pilots and offer human factors programs. Worth attending.



Gf
galaxy flyer is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
edavis
Corporate
7
02-21-2011 10:33 AM
BHopper88
Career Questions
4
02-28-2010 06:35 AM
Plane5150
Corporate
1
10-26-2009 04:22 AM
VTPilot31
Career Questions
2
06-29-2009 08:22 AM
waflyboy
Fractional
10
06-23-2008 12:15 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices