Turbo prop PIC vs Turbo Jet PIC
 

I’m sure this is a can of worms but do majors looks down on 121 PIC turbo prop time vs 121 turbo jet time?

No.

I've never seen any evidence of that

Props are for boats

Wait, we talking underwing mounted jet engines or rear mounted?

I have a ton of T Prop time, but always say this: if you have a choice, always choose jet over prop. While it won’t hurt you, it won’t open and doors or do you any favors either. However, jet vs prop is far down the list. If you can drive to work and make more money in a prop, that’s the choice every time.

disclaimer: so long as we are talking Saab/Dash vs CRJ and not King Air 90/Pilatus.

Size of aircraft matters much more than powerplant, although the two are mostly correlated.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/oe33xf3B50fsc/giphy.gif

It always brought concern to my interviews, but never stopped me from getting interviews.

In the old days, most (all if you go back far enough) commuter pilots were prop pilots so it was common for majors to hire prop pilots. But they'd hire "12 to make 10", ie expecting to wash out about 20%. Today they expect to graduate 99%.

There is a real and significant learning curve from props to jets (jets to turboprops is a challenge in some respects too, but that's not what the majors are dealing with). Especially for older pilots, I retired a prop fleet once and unfortunately several of the prop lifers didn't make it through jet training (the company tried REALLY hard, so no fault there).

With all the RJs and RJ pilots out there, there's been a natural shift to prefer some jet time simply because it means you're a better training risk. That's it. If I were hiring pilots for a transport category turboprop, I'd prefer they have previous turbprop time and all else equal I'd take that over jet time.

Some airlines are known to not care either way (ie SWA last I heard). But some or many will weight apps more with jet time so if you get the opportunity, get a jet type and some experience. You don't necessarily need jet PIC, just show that you're trainable on a jet. Recently is good too.

Military is the exception, they mostly don't care either way, ie Herc vs C-17 should have identical opportunities.

Which I’d say is primarily a function of size. (Vs the various small military TP’s which might not get as much credit)

The small TPs are not going to be your primary mil platform, except in a small army niche which is another ball of wax entirely.

All other services those are essentially training or utility aircraft which you might fly on a non-operational tour. Your marketability with majors is keyed to your operational platform... if that's a helo you'll need to do a touch and go at a regional.

But even so I bet a T6 FAIP who had enough hours and did a palace chase maneuver could get hired at DL.

My jet type rating and flying is the easiest flying I’ve ever done. Props make you a better pilot, no magenta lines to rely on

The PL21 system in my current TP has plenty of colored lines - to include magenta.

There wasn’t anything simple about ATR’s and SF3’s and Dash-8’s. It’s good PIC time and requires a type rating to boot. Add in the 121 experience and you have someone well qualified.

Corporate jet PIC time is a good number too.

If you have both, it’s a good mix and varied experience.

Can’t comment on mil experience as I’m civilian, but I’m sure PIC time is PIC time at the end of the day.

FWIW, many don’t require the PIC turbine time anymore.

My old turbo prop job was substantially more challenging than my Airbus job.

I was a much better pilot then than I am now. Going from a turbo prop to an Airbus was a totally fine transition. Absolutely no reason to not hire turbo prop pilots to fly 737s/A320s

Same, it's not harder it's just different. But some people don't do different very well. Several of the legacies observed higher rates training problems with folks who didn't have jet time so they started weighting it accordingly. That's a known fact, so take it into account in your career movements.

I think a lot is just information overload. Where to look for what you need from the steam era to the glass stuff. I’m pretty sure the group coming up has less round dial time to “unlearn” so to speak.

I think you are very correct in your assertion about information overload.
Recently my organization hired a 70+ year old, very high time former DC-8 pilot who worked for whatever ACMI/Cargo airline is flying DC-8s (like DHL or someone?). In any case - I'm not sure what the cockpits of a DC-8 is like - but this person was not (for whatever combination of age, stuck in his old ways, inability to transition to glass, or just a poor attitude which he displayed in Indoc class) comfortable in the King Air 300. Failed CAE's KA350 Initial Type checkride twice.

The (in relation) 'younger guys' coming in from either GA, the P135/121 world, and the military most have plenty of some sort of glass cockpit time and seem to transition fairly easily to any of our airplanes.

It is not a prop to jet issue or a dial to glass issue. It’s a brain malleability issue. Most common reason for deterioration is age. Being old doesn’t mean you have it worse, just more likely.

The other reason would be some sort of visual/spatial issue that makes it hard to develop a scan with the myriad of glass info depictions.

The prop guys (from my old regional) that had issues at my my major were mostly older and very often difficult personality types. Regardless, people who obsess about the way their previous type operated (prop or jet), and can’t brain dump, are going to have a harder training experience.

Psychologists generalize it. People hate change. It means the brain has to do something different than what it is used to. Not saying change is bad. It is a more difficult adjustment.

I was hired about three years ago. All my pic time was multi prop. I had about a year of jets as an SIC. My interview prep said now a days jet time is better because it’s so common. So yeah, I think they look at the quality of the time. 1000 TPIC in a 135 caravan v. 121 jet - what would you do? However, if you were already there getting TPIC time, even in a single engine prop id finish out the 1000 before running off to fly a jet in the right seat, because at least you'll have the box checked. And that would be better for you overall than the jet time in the right seat. Obviously, just a slightly educated guess. Props didn’t keep me from being hired.

Just a data point…

friend was a successful entrepreneur and flew his personal sub-12.5k multi turboprop pic for 2000 hours.

sells his company, goes to fly a crj right before covid. Just got hired a spirit with about 1000 121 sic

turbine pic never hurts

It seems to be a thing that you can get by with prop TPIC as long as you have glass jet SIC experience (preferably 121)... that shows you can command a complicated airplane and also that you can be trained and function at jet speeds in a crew environment.

Takeaway here is that if you're a civilian and your only experience is turbo-props you might want to consider how to get some (121) jet time... likely quicker to go do that than waiting for a call without it (which might never come).

MULTIENGINE turboprop PIC makes you more competitive, although not as competitive as 121 jet time. 208 PIC time and multiengine piston PIC are pretty much a wash, at least in my experience.

Been flying SA227 PIC single pilot for the past year with no autopilot. ILS approach down to mins is always interesting and rewarding.

In my case all my TPIC is 121 76 seater turboprop. But the consensus seems I should take the transition to the 175

The “Q” stands for quiet.

yeah, quite ****ing loud lol

Also, stands for ANVS “Q”-uite often deferred.

1. Jet time is good
2. Jet PIC is good
3. Type ratings are good
4. Recent training events are good

Unless you'd take an unacceptable QOL hit due to reserve/seniority, yeah transitioning is going to be a net positive on multiple accounts.

time to become a jet queen, might need a new belt after I eat all those first class cookies

This makes no sense to me. Honest question - why do you think this is the case?

Turbofans are typically simpler than turboprops (less moving parts). Less levers to operate. You don't have condition levers and beta, etc. Everything else is usually the same except that jets may have more systems. Right?

My take:

probably some of this has to do with the specific turboprops and jets being flown by us airlines recently.

if you had 80,000 lb swept wing turboprops with fms/fl410 ceiling 400kt cruise being used in 121 ops … it would probably be a minor transition

but you don’t. Saabs and Dash 8’s are very different from A320’s.

Jet's are faster. Sometimes people struggle with that. If you're also moving from steam to glass, that's a problem too. I've seen it happen.

A glass turboprop will make for an easier transition.

Going from a glass jet to a steam turboprop could be very challenging too, but that's not an issue the majors have to worry about.

Doesn't matter what I think though, it's major HR departments that came to this conclusion.

So the issue is really glass, and speed, not the fundamentals of a turboprop vs a turbofan?

I went from steam prop to glass jet and the only issue I remember is remembering to slow to 250 and the fact that most jets cant go down and slow down at the same time. That’s about it

Yes.

Energy management on jets is a bit harder because it's harder to slow them down. I came from turbo props and they are more forgiving for poor decent planning. You can slow them down much quicker.

The glass cockpit thing is a different issue. I didn't find going to a modern, glass cockpit to be difficult at all but everyone is different.

As for system complexity, it just doesn't matter. You have a throttle in both. You push it forward to go fast. The number of moving parts doesn't matter much.

I came from a turbo prop only airline and saw all of our pilots get hired to fly big jets. I do not believe turbo prop pilots (multi engine turbo prop) struggle to get big jet jobs or struggle with training

The issue isn’t “do most turboprop pilots struggle to upgrade”

The issue is “do the people who struggle more often come from turboprops”

People who struggle in training are a huge time suck. The training supervisor on call who had to decide how many extra sim sessions someone needs after they fail something on a Saturday at 10pm. The 8 people on the training review committee that spend an hour talking about it after he still fails after two extra sessions. The guy who ends up staying at a residence inn in XYZ because this guy’s extension took his slot at ABC

It’s a big production. So if 20/1000 people have problems in training you look at the 20 not the 980. 10/300 people without jet have issues compared to 10/700 with jet time… there’s your answer

Yeah.......

There's always people who struggle in training. And training depts have to deal with that.

But i don't believe there is any evidence to support the idea that turbo prop pilots will struggle more. In fact, I suspect it's the other way around.

Like I said, I came from a turboprop airline and I watched every one of our pilots successfully move up to "big jet" jobs

I think so, yes.

The jet propulsion is very obviously easier to manage than the prop propulsion, and I've seen RJ pilots wash out trying to upgrade on turboprops. But that's just not a problem that majors care about though.

SWA definitely was happy to hire turboprop pilots recently, although every single one that I knew was a LCA.