Jets or turboprops? Is the jet worth the long upgrade time?
01-22-2006, 01:21 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'll miss the Mighty Beech...
All I know is that I'm heading for Jet Land after flying the Beech 1900D for about 6 months. Turboprops are a lot of fun. With some of them, you still some avionic advancements like EFIS and GPS. The thing I'll miss most is hand-flying. No auto-pilot in our birds. Nice thing about a turboprop operator though is generally a fast upgrade. But, turbine is turbine... Go where you'll be happy.
01-22-2006, 01:53 PM
#14
Cloudbase
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 717A
Posts: 532
Ok, next question. If I go turboprop, is part 121 any better than 135? The only advantage I can see for me is I'll be graduating about 2 months past my 21st birthday, and if a turboprop carrier offers 10 months upgrades (as of now), I wouldn't need to wait till I was 23 for the ATP and left seat if I was at a 135 operation. Not to mention the Shorts probably has a higher max gross than a Jetstream. I'm not trying to be greedy for the left seat, I just want to get to where I want to go as quick as possible. What do you guys think?
01-22-2006, 02:04 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: CR7 Capt
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by NEDude
SWA is 1000 hours of turbine PIC (the person signing for the aircraft).
Jet Blue is 1000 hours in turboprops over 20,000 lbs, or 1000 hours in jets over 12,500 lbs. In other words everyone can apply but Beech 1900 and Jetstream 31 drivers.
Jet Blue is 1000 hours in turboprops over 20,000 lbs, or 1000 hours in jets over 12,500 lbs. In other words everyone can apply but Beech 1900 and Jetstream 31 drivers.
Ok, for SWA it says 1000hrs turbine time, but it doesn't say if it needs to be Multi turbine. What think about applying for them with 1000hrs PIC Pilatus (single engine turbine) time??
01-22-2006, 04:23 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Jungle Jet
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by GliderCFI
Ok, next question. If I go turboprop, is part 121 any better than 135?
Obviously it can be done either way but from what I hear if you want to upgrade to a "big" 121 operator having 121 experince brings in some bonus points.
01-22-2006, 05:47 PM
#17
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by GliderCFI
Ok, next question. If I go turboprop, is part 121 any better than 135?
NOPE. Turbine time. Turbine time. Turbine time.
- The truth only hurts if it should -
01-22-2006, 09:38 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Turbine is turbine
I would agree with others that it shouldn't matter. It's all in how you interview. If your asked about your turboprop time, stress how having a prop spinning off the end of your "turbine engine" means you have more systems to deal with (i.e. govenors & feathering) and don't forget, your still flying a "complex" aircraft. Most turboprops can't fly over the weather and most times going around it isn't possible, so you have to plunge right through it. I think what may matter more is being over 20,000 lbs. As long as you have turbine time in a heavy aircraft, a turbine is a turbine. Get the PIC turbine time anyway you can as quickly as you can seems to be the advice I get most.
01-23-2006, 06:45 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Math Teacher
Posts: 2,274
Turbojet time -vs- jet time
I have read some of the comments about turbine time -vs- jet time. My question is why are airlines(whether cargo, majors, LCC's) asking "How much multi engine do you have (meaning propellor driven a/c) when they are buying nothing but jet a/c? Is this used to determine my skill level or is it used as a disqualifier? Any feedback
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
