I think I know of a place just like PNW, a place called New England. Fly out of coastal fog in Nantucket just to be greeted by windshear over the mountainous terrain of Vermont and New Hampshire at night just after dodging student training flights in Boston Class B and Hanscom/Manchester traffic all in a 1 1/2 hour flight.

Maybe it can compare with the PNW but not with Alaska as far as rugged terrain.

Alaska certainly does not have the traffic dangers or congestion but it has every bit of ruggedness the northeast has times ten. I always thought the NE had mountains until I lived out west. The north west has landing strips with higher elevations than the tops of the north easts highest peaks.

As far as large turboprop time you can rule out the -400. I had a harder time in a 310 than the -400, it is a computer all you have to know how to do is input the numbers and keep it right side up.

Wouldn't it be interesting to log time base upon location? A Pacific Northwest column, Alaska column... How can we adequately quantify "toughness"?

I find it a little bit silly for folks to throw large amounts of money at twin engine airplanes, when more valuable experience can be had in a single (in my mind). I'd rather fly with a person with lots of actual versus a person with lots of multi.

I wonder if there is a correlation to high amounts of multi time and being better prepared to fly 135/121? Is that why multi is in demand? It seems companies could require higher amounts of the times instead and get experienced pilots.

Finally, I certainly feel that sim time does matter, and I probably should have ranked the sim much higher than I did.

Best,

Then you are not enjoying your job enough. Turn the auto pilot off coming through 10k. Toss the FD out also if your SOPs allow it. It was the only way I stayed sane flying that thing. :cool:

I would also like to add something I thought of a little late. How about a DC-3, with turbines, in the Andes, during monsoon ...

Ahhh.... the ever constant struggle of keeping the airplane right side up! Have you ever flown aerobatics before. Flying upside down and doing barrel rolls were some of the greatest memories I ever had as a pilot. I plan on having some more great memories if you know what I mean :cool:

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.

The funny thing about the "who has the toughest IFR" thing is that back in the day, I was looked down on because I flew in Southern California. When I flew for the commuters in New England, I felt that the IFR was far easier there than SoCal. I flew far more approaches to minimums in California than I ever did in New England.

On a lighter note, it's not the size of the mountain you hit that kills you, it's the fact that you hit a mountain.

hahahahaha

I was actually fortunate to be able to get a few hundred dual given as an aerobatics instructor. Definitely a blast and a valuable experience.

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). :eek:

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).