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!
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. 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...