Is multi time really THAT valuable?
 

Heresy! Treason! I know, questioning the value of multi time is lunacy. But really, how hard is it?

Most people building multi time aren't out doing Vmc demos and engine cuts. What's the difference if a flight used two engines instead of one? There are some complex, high performance singles that can provide more of a work out than a typical twin trainer.

If I could rank flight time (for civilian trained pilots) on a generic scale in terms of learning/experience/toughness value*;

1. Actual Instrument
2. Dual given
3. Simulated Instrument
4. Night
5. Cross Country
6. Complex
7. Multi
8. High Performance
9. SIM/FTD


Someone telling me all the oodles of multi time they have doesn't impress me much. Especially if they rented it to just fly straight and level for the sake of getting multi time. Someone who has these other times, particularly numbers 1 and 2 impress me the most.



*This is based on my judgement of flight time for someone who would even care about multi time in the first place; likely a person applying for a 135 or 121 gig after getting their certs.

I don't know - most of my simulator time and/or simulated instrument time is some of the most challenging time that I have had in my experience - -
THANK GOODNESS! :eek::D
I get what you mean though. It will be interesting to see what/how some of the others on the forum rank the value of different times.

USMCFLYR

I think it has less to do with Vmc and more to do with the size, speed, complexity, and missions involved.

If you are an MEI, you are salvaging a potential catastrophe every single day.

If you are a light-twin freight pilot, you are probably pushing the performance and environmental limits of that type of airplane.

Call me crazy, but I would probably put aerobatic...real aerobatic...time up there in value with actual IMC....but maybe I'm just partial.

The multi thing is tricky, because if you are an MEI, than that time has more value than single dual-given.. however the requirements for 15 PIC to become an MEI are really not all that much, so MEI canidates should have more multi time PIC - without an instructor maybe.
Also... solo multi-time is worth a bit as well, few new pilots actually have any of that because of most insurance requirements - but that would pertain to freight guys doing a buncha IMC stuff solo, etc.

Heavy, turbine, tailwheel, night, 135 freight. In lieu of that, tailwheel.

I would put Large Twin TurboProp (Q200,Q300,Q400, ATR72...)as number one. Especially if it is flown as cargo. But this is an argument that has to many variables. Actual IMC in the Pac Northwest and Alaska rates higher than Actual IMC in Nebraska. Actual Instrument Approachs in a Jet at the speeds that a Jet flies at compared to what a single piston would shoot the same approach at make a significant difference.

But I have to agree with USMC. Some of my sim flights have been the most intense flight situations I have ever been in. But again the difference between being a student in a Frasca sim and at flight safety in a 10 million dollar full motion sim is night and day.

My comments about the sim flights were somewhat tongue in cheek because the sims I was referring to are my Emergency Procedures simulators and instrument proficiency flights where the worse tends to happen; thus my comment that I am glad I haven't had such interesting/challenging flights for real (for the most part):)
I'm curious though Bored why you count actual IMC in the PNW or Alaska as more valuable time than actual in other parts of the country?

USMCFLYR

Big pieces of limestone. :D I think that the challenges imposed on pilot who flies in PNW and Alaska are some of the most severe found on the North American Continent. The combination of severe icing, turbulence, mountain flying, engine out procedures in and out of mountainous airports, the insanely rapid changes in conditions at destination airports due to coastal weather patterns, wind conditions in mountainous terrain. Add into it the enormous percentage of the year that these conditions present themselves. Many of these can be found elsewhere in the US including thunderstorms in the plain states, but in my experience the all of these conditions/situations in one place compounded by big rocks make experience obtained in rapid decision making and situational awareness all the more valuable.

I thought that the terrain might be why you considered it so. that is understood. I was solely thinking that if the approach in flown properly then whether the IMC is in the PNW or the Plains or SE - all turns out ok. If the approach is not flown properly - well - whether it be a big piece of limestone or a TV tower or whatever other obstruction is going to be a problem. The weather piece is another point. I agree that the percentage of weather related problems is probably pretty high in the PNW and Alasksa, but as you pointed out - those plains storms and the weather I have dealt with up and down the east coast are nothing to sneeze at either. In any case - thanks for the clarification.

USMCFLYR

I think multi is just the added responsibility. It's another way to distinguish pilots. I compare it to turbine PIC when applying to a major. You can have 10,000 hours of 121 SIC time but not be competitive when compared to someone with less time but 1000 PIC. Is PIC important? Of course. But I don't think it makes someone without PIC unqualified. Same with multi time. It's harder to get than single time, so it stands out more. Just my take...

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).

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

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:p)

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:cool:

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-

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

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