Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Flight Schools and Training
Is multi time really THAT valuable? >

Is multi time really THAT valuable?

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

Is multi time really THAT valuable?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-07-2009, 10:06 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryan1234's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Default

Once in a blue moon, someone might be able to get a good deal on multi-time in an old aztec or seneca and mitigate the requirements through...but there certainly is a lot of variety in training out there for nearly the same price (i.e. aerobatics, seaplane add-on, glider) most people will have the rest of their careers to fly straight and level.

One really big waste of money (to me at least) is those who train in glass... of course that's been covered in other threads.... and (to rock the boat a bit) why would anyone consider DA42 time the least bit more valuable than a complex single?

but..... chacun à son goût
ryan1234 is offline  
Old 06-07-2009, 04:47 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ZBowFlyz's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Left
Posts: 251
Default

Originally Posted by ryan1234 View Post
One really big waste of money (to me at least) is those who train in glass... of course that's been covered in other threads.... and (to rock the boat a bit) why would anyone consider DA42 time the least bit more valuable than a complex single?

but..... chacun à son goût
First off I agree to a point. But I'll bite on your question. The DA-42 is the most complex light twin around. 6 levers vs. two? I don't get that argument

Now let me say that my argument only applies if the CFI actually makes the student know the airplane inside and out.

1. G1000, yes the scan is easy. Knowing the system, the failures, and most of all how to get the data you desire is not that easy to learn. On top of that it is flat out safer than steam.(and I'm one of those people who has watched a steam AI roll over in IMC. I like safe things)

2. It actually has a critical engine.

3. It has huge wings and really forces a "stick and rudder" skill on the pilot.

4. FIKI, Again its easy to use the on/off switch. It's knowing the system.

5. FADEC. see above. What do I do when the ECU fails?

6. Electrical. Complex as heck for a GA light twin.

etc.

Okay now here comes the real reason I like them... I was climbing at 10k yesterday +4C

And the real reason the schools like them is because burning 8GPH in cruise helps control operating costs.

(Everthing is void if that new engine isn't certified in a year)
ZBowFlyz is offline  
Old 06-07-2009, 06:45 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryan1234's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Default

Originally Posted by ZBowFlyz View Post
First off I agree to a point. But I'll bite on your question. The DA-42 is the most complex light twin around. 6 levers vs. two? I don't get that argument

And the real reason the schools like them is because burning 8GPH in cruise helps control operating costs.

(Everthing is void if that new engine isn't certified in a year)
I'm not saying it isn't cool or complex, but rather why would it be more valuable?

The very complex electrical system is a good point though.


However, gas mileage means little when a gearbox has a 300hr life at $16000 a pop new (maybe you can get an overhaul - not sure how that works)- which would be about an extra $100/hr just for the gearbox not to mention other costs and the $600k price tag.

Air Orlando charges like $364/hr for the DA42 dual (!!!!!!)

An older Seneca I gets around 8.5-9gph each engine

I'm anxious to see how they do with the IO-360s
-it is cool to fly a twin with a stick though-
ryan1234 is offline  
Old 06-07-2009, 06:57 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Default

Originally Posted by jonnyjetprop View Post
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.
My community doesn't fly a whole lot of actual - usually doesn't at least. We like to avoid the weather whenever possible and flying in the central valley of CA and in the souteastern desert of CA the most I don't even SEE actual very often. I finally had a chance to shoot an acutal though recently down in San Diego (Miramar more exactly).
As far as your last note Johnny - that is sort of the point I was making too. If your on and on the approach - it doesn't matter whether you are in the lowlands of SC or the mountains of Nevada. If you are NOT on and on - then the water can kill you just as easily as the mountains.

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 06-07-2009, 07:28 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ZBowFlyz's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Left
Posts: 251
Default

Originally Posted by ryan1234 View Post
I'm not saying it isn't cool or complex, but rather why would it be more valuable?

I don't really have anything except that it's good experience to learn a "highly complex" airplane... Is that experience better than 200+KIAS turbo stuff? I don't know...

The very complex electrical system is a good point though.


However, gas mileage means little when a gearbox has a 300hr life at $16000 a pop new (maybe you can get an overhaul - not sure how that works)- which would be about an extra $100/hr just for the gearbox not to mention other costs and the $600k price tag.

Yeah that sucks. Still no overhaul, it's a swap

Air Orlando charges like $364/hr for the DA42 dual (!!!!!!)

I think we are 365+65

An older Seneca I gets around 8.5-9gph each engine

8 total in the 42

I'm anxious to see how they do with the IO-360s
-it is cool to fly a twin with a stick though-
The field we are at, the IO360 wouldn't change our numbers much. Down low though, that will make it a 200KT rocket ship. The problem is that it will have the range of a mosquito. (the bug, not the WWII plane)
ZBowFlyz is offline  
Old 06-08-2009, 05:06 AM
  #26  
Flying Farmer
 
Ewfflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Default

Solo, Night, IMC(to mins), single-engine(in a MEL), and a few inop instruments. That's why MEL time is sought after. Because most likely when you move up to something bigger/faster/etc.. It'll have twin-noisemakers and they want you to have a strong skill-set for not only the normal operations, but for those times that everything seems to go wrong. Every 6 months I had a check-ride at my old job, and that scenario above was something we did practice. Although it was daytime on the check-ride, I did perform that at night(with safety pilot) several times. I did fly freight, so it worked out that I could do this with no interferance on my payload, but I could see how it could hinder those with pax operations, not something you like to do to the folks paying in the back.

Things are what you make of them, so always find a way to improve and challenge yourself, it will make you a better pilot in the long run, regardless of what you are flying
Ewfflyer is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
38
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
N6724G
Regional
54
03-03-2009 12:57 PM
ts39136
Flight Schools and Training
18
01-03-2009 02:39 PM
AirlinePirate7
Flight Schools and Training
10
11-25-2008 10:22 AM
jesduke1102
Flight Schools and Training
0
08-02-2008 06:55 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



Your Privacy Choices