There is absolutely a clear line. Piston pressurization only raises the premium in dollars per $100K in coverage. Turbine aircraft (which of course includes pressurization) as far as I know requires initial (if it is first time in make and model) and recurrent training with an insurance approved organization. I have never known this to be excepted. That adds $4-5K to the cost of insurance in one fell swoop. This is a clear line of demarcation. When private pilots cross this line insurance companies get as nervous as a whore in Sunday school. I wonder if this pilot even had insurance?
PC-12 midair breakup?
- Thread starter olasek
- Start date
There is absolutely a clear line. Piston pressurization only raises the premium in dollars per $100K in coverage. Turbine aircraft (which of course includes pressurization) as far as I know requires initial (if it is first time in make and model) and recurrent training with an insurance approved organization. I have never known this to be excepted. That adds $4-5K to the cost of insurance in one fell swoop. This is a clear line of demarcation. When private pilots cross this line insurance companies get as nervous as a whore in Sunday school. I wonder if this pilot even had insurance?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I agree. This pilot wasn't experienced enough to be flying this airplane in my opinion. But, some insurance company agreed to insure him anyway, probably because they make enough money off of the ones who are lucky enough to not crash to keep it profitable.
Historically, though, we've seen the exact same thing happen with unpressurized piston planes. Commonly enough that I don't think it makes the news anymore. Like I said, this seems to have started with the Bonanza, later progressed to the Malibu, and now we see the TBM/Pilatus. Meanwhile, there are no shortage of Bonanzas, Malibus, JetProps/Meridians that have crashed due to what amount to these same sorts of "Pilot is not experienced enough for this plane" crashes. You see them in twins, too, but the "doctor killer" stigma seems to follow these single-engine lines. I've seen several people in the twin world who I classify as "NTSB reports waiting to happen." Most of them will probably be just fine in the end, but that'll be a matter of luck.
The fact that the guy killed himself in this situation doesn't bother me a great deal, simply because it was his own fault. If I kill myself doing something stupid, y'all don't feel sorry for me, either. What really turns my stomach is thinking about his family. I just can't imagine the terror they went through as it was several minutes to fall from the mid 20s.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Cabin class piston twins and pressurized piston singles (or at least the Malibu) do typically require an initial and then recurrent training program of some sort. Sometimes it's one of the sim providers, however there are individual instructors who have an approved training syllabus for in-plane training that can be used.
Sometimes you can get out of it based on experience or a particular underwriter. For example, when I started flying the Navajo, I required 50 hours of dual, but I didn't need to go to sim training. That was due to the underwriter, though. My friend with about 3,000 more hours than me who flew a Navajo did have to go to recurrent, but the underwriter required it. He didn't mind it and rather liked going anyway. I don't know of anyone on the Twin Cessna group flying a 340, 414, or 421 who doesn't get some sort of recurrent training from an approved provider as required by insurance.
It seems that once you get out of cabin class and pressurization, they don't care. They won't give me any discount for training in the 310, so if I do it it's completely because I want to. But, at this point with over 2k TT, ~1800 MEL and ~700 in type, I guess they figure I know the plane alright.
Ted DuPuis;1622640......... The fact that the guy killed himself in this situation doesn't bother me a great deal said:
Yup.... The longest few minutes of their lives.... And poor kid that was thrown out of the fuselage and landed a few miles away.. God.. That has to be terrible...
Yeah,, but.... Those are the trips that kill most rookie pilots.....
Like this one...
Exactly, which is why this ecocentric view isn't really all that smart is it?
Yup.... The longest few minutes of their lives.... And poor kid that was thrown out of the fuselage and landed a few miles away.. God.. That has to be terrible...
I doubt it was terrible at all. Looking at death has never been terrible for myself or anyone I talked to about it who had been there as well. The times that are bad is when you know you just screwed up and if you don't pull this out of your ass quick, you'll be looking at death. I bet the kid had an interesting but calm ride down.
I have never been required to go to any school for the Navajo. I have been a couple of times because the owner would pay for it. No insurance break at all.
I guy on the field flys a Malibu. I have talked to Bobby a few times. He is a relatively low (maybe 1500 hrs) IR PP. Insurance required him to go to the factory ground school and he needed his initial IPC in make and model.
After that he was offered no price break for recurrent training.
I have a friend here who flew the 421 for years and moved to the KA 200. Never went to any school on the 421 (except initial) but, had to start recurrent on the KA, no option.
On the pressure and non pressure cabin twins I have never seen recurrent required (suggested, encouraged, offered a price break, maybe). A pilot making a big jump like from an Arrow to a cabin class MAY be required to take an initial on make and model. On the pressure piston twins recurrent is rarely required but sometimes a price break may be given to low time pilots. Very few owner operators of piston cabin class or pressurized singles is going to fork out $5-6 K a year on this kind of training.
I never said the requirements do not go up for the pressurized pistons, just seldom a requirement for FTD/sim/or an insurance approved individual.
Now when you step into the turbine world it is not about getting discounts, it is about getting coverage. You will do initial (if new to make and model) and you will do recurrent. When I started the PAY 3, I had over 2000 hours in a PA31 and had been to sim school a couple of times. No question, initial sim and recurrent after that, to keep the insurance valid. Each year my training records were forwarded to the underwriter.That to me is a clear line of demarcation. The turbine world is just different. Turbo jet is the next line. Of course in the turbo jet the FARs take care of most of this difference.
Your friend did not have to go to recurrent but, the underwriter required it??Who but the underwriter would ever required it. Honestly, Ted, that makes no sense??
We will just have to agree to disagree:wink2:
I guy on the field flys a Malibu. I have talked to Bobby a few times. He is a relatively low (maybe 1500 hrs) IR PP. Insurance required him to go to the factory ground school and he needed his initial IPC in make and model.
After that he was offered no price break for recurrent training.
I have a friend here who flew the 421 for years and moved to the KA 200. Never went to any school on the 421 (except initial) but, had to start recurrent on the KA, no option.
On the pressure and non pressure cabin twins I have never seen recurrent required (suggested, encouraged, offered a price break, maybe). A pilot making a big jump like from an Arrow to a cabin class MAY be required to take an initial on make and model. On the pressure piston twins recurrent is rarely required but sometimes a price break may be given to low time pilots. Very few owner operators of piston cabin class or pressurized singles is going to fork out $5-6 K a year on this kind of training.
I never said the requirements do not go up for the pressurized pistons, just seldom a requirement for FTD/sim/or an insurance approved individual.
Now when you step into the turbine world it is not about getting discounts, it is about getting coverage. You will do initial (if new to make and model) and you will do recurrent. When I started the PAY 3, I had over 2000 hours in a PA31 and had been to sim school a couple of times. No question, initial sim and recurrent after that, to keep the insurance valid. Each year my training records were forwarded to the underwriter.That to me is a clear line of demarcation. The turbine world is just different. Turbo jet is the next line. Of course in the turbo jet the FARs take care of most of this difference.
Your friend did not have to go to recurrent but, the underwriter required it??Who but the underwriter would ever required it. Honestly, Ted, that makes no sense??
We will just have to agree to disagree:wink2:
The more stringent insurance requirements on turbines is because there is more money at risk. Once there is mor than a million dollars on the line in a single accident, the insurance requirements get stricter. Not only are the hull coverages higher, so are the liability limits. It's not unusual for a King Air to have $5MM liability cover, add a $2MM aircraft and they have $7MM worth of exposure. In the typical policy 310 accident they will have a maximum of $1.2MM exposure, and actuarially they have mostly just hull exposure +$100k for one insured seat in use. As their risk goes up, their pilot training standards go up. I bet if you fly 200+hrs a year in the King Air they waive recurrent training requirements.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'll disagree on one part.
I had a "dead" Cuban soldier come to life and stick a bayonet in me. For the next 4 minutes, or 4 years, I don't remember which, was not a calm and peaceful time in my life, it was the most terrifying moments of my life. 31 years later and it is still part of my life.
The unfortunate child that came out of the plane was probably too young to realize he was in the last moments of his life. He was probably wondering where his mamma was and why isn't she making this better. More likely his head was bashed in on the way out and was either already dead or no longer conscious.
There are other factors at play with combat that make it not typical.
olasek
Pattern Altitude
Exactly.
Alexb2000
En-Route
This reads to me like a lot of... "This could never happen to me because, I'm good, I'm experienced" whatever. We all are tempted to do this because every one of these accidents, and there are many, make us worry about our own mortality. I've lost a couple of friends in just the last couple of years the latest one had 30,000 hours so I didn't have a rationalization as easy and convienant as this one. Doesn't matter each and every one makes me consider if this game is really worth it as I'm sure it does for others. I obviously choose to keep flying, but never because I believe it couldn't happen to me.
Gravity wins EVERY time.... It is up to us to defeat it till the plane in safely in the hangar.
Turbine aircraft benefit from a significant reduction in insurance per unit of coverage. Of course there is more dollars at risk. The more stringent requirements is to protect the insurance company investment. What has that got to do with the discussion at hand? To me it is obvious there is a clear difference in turbine aircraft and piston aircraft in required training and experience level. Good grief guys, in one, recurrent training in addition to that required by FARs is overwhelmingly voluntary. The companies do sometimes is certain cases offer monetary incentive. In Ted's example he clearly said the underwriter did not require him to do recurrent in the Navajo but, required only,50 hours dual.(I suspect Ted means a baby sitter for 50 hours. I can't imagine what an MEI would do for 50 hours.)
Henning, I am not a gambling man, but, I would be very tempted to take that bet (wouldn't be gambling as it would be a sure thing for me). Turbine aircraft and required recurrent training along with required experience go hand in hand.
Look, some here think experience does not improve safety (read AlexB2000). Some think a single engine fixed gear requires the same training and skill set as flying turbine aircraft. So be it. Opinions, are like ****oles, everyone has one. Yours is as good as mine.
I hope everyone had a safe and happy Thanksgiving!!
Henning, I am not a gambling man, but, I would be very tempted to take that bet (wouldn't be gambling as it would be a sure thing for me). Turbine aircraft and required recurrent training along with required experience go hand in hand.
Look, some here think experience does not improve safety (read AlexB2000). Some think a single engine fixed gear requires the same training and skill set as flying turbine aircraft. So be it. Opinions, are like ****oles, everyone has one. Yours is as good as mine.
I hope everyone had a safe and happy Thanksgiving!!
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
You left Cirrus off the list.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Yes and no
The PC12 is much more procedural, and you have many more systems to manage, compared to a 152. As I said before the pilatus is very easy to fly, but if something goes wrong or you mess up, you need to react NOW, a PC12 will pick up speed much faster than a 152/82 and was not designed as a trainer.
I always view it like this, presuming he had a CPL, based on experience and hours, currency, etc, would a company who didn't know that pilot hire him to fly 5 pax on that trip in that plane.
In this case the answer wouldn't just be no, he wouldn't have even made it to the interview.
Last edited:
KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
And you can prove that, how exactly?
Defeating nature is a bad outlook to have, you work with gravity playing by gravity's rules. There was only one guy I couldn't teach to sail in 3 lessons because he just had to sail closer to the wind than nature would allow.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I have a rare gift called common sense.
That and I know a little about the PC12.
His total time was too low
He was no where near current
He doesn't have anywhere near the instrument time
He didnt have jack for turbine time
His screw ups in training would have washed him out of a paid gig
Post a job listing for a PC12 IFR Single Pilot job for a 800hr guy with near no instrument time and zero turbine time.
Last edited:
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,709
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
Luffing will get you nowhere.... But then, it will not kill you either..
Unless you are trying to get away from a rocky lee shoreline
KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
Oh yes, I forgot, you're some all knowing hiring machine. Give me a break. Glad there are employers out there who aren't as big as a jackass as you seem to be, willing to give people a chance to prove themselves. You'd tell me I'm not qualified to even fly an airplane with my time
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, to fly for my company you will need the minimum times for insurance:
2500 total time
1000 PIC
500 multi and then pt 135 IFR times. 400 series Cessna helpful but not required.
I get unsolicited resumes that have much more time than required.
Our company will transition to the PC-12 next year, and add pilots. The insurance will add more minimums to fly for my company, a few for example:
Initial training (Simcom mentioned)
100 hours turbine,
25 hours in make and model, for those with less time then the check airman will have to ride right seat until the 25 hours is met.
25 hours in flight after passing the checkride with a check airman (like airline IOE, and will be counted towards the 25 hours total time in the PC-12, if needed)
These are just insurance requirements. When I start asking for resumes I will pick the best applicants. I will bet all will far excede the minimum requirements. The applicant will get a chance to prove him/her self with logged total times and previous experience on their resume.
I have two medics, one patient and possibly a patient family member on board. So no, I am not willing to give someone without minimum flight times a chance. Probably any applicants with just minimum flight times won't make the first cut.
Hope this helps you understand a little more.
Luffing will get you nowhere.... But then, it will not kill you either..
Oh yes it will...
Alexb2000
En-Route
I never made any such suggestion, but hey it's a quick way to make a dismissive rationalization which goes to my point.
Hope you had a good holiday as well.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Ronnie, you've been around different brokers than me. But I will say that in the Twin Cessna group, most people that I talk to with 340s on up do go to recurrent training. Maybe it has to do with the attitude of the group, and perhaps fewer of them bother to try to get out of it. I went to SimCom a bit over a year ago and wasn't impressed with the experience, so if I upgraded from the 310 I'd go for an approved instructor as I've heard much more positive results from those individuals.
Actually, if you go back and re-read what I wrote, you will find:
I also don't think we're disagreeing overall, but I do think you're missing some of what I (and others) have been saying, which may be why you think we're disagreeing.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
Actually, if you go back and re-read what I wrote, you will find:
I also don't think we're disagreeing overall, but I do think you're missing some of what I (and others) have been saying, which may be why you think we're disagreeing.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
TEFLONSEAN
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 604
- Display Name
Display name:
Teflonsean
Guy bought a plane that increased his confidence level beyond his flying ability.
Flew into less than ideal conditions.
Outcome was tragic.
Wasn't the first time this has happened....(pick your plane and NTSB report)
End of story.
Flew into less than ideal conditions.
Outcome was tragic.
Wasn't the first time this has happened....(pick your plane and NTSB report)
End of story.
Bill Watson
En-Route
Yesterday I landed in Pgh (KAGC) with my RV10. Once parked I was forced to walk past a Pilatus doing my usual slow drool. Just ask my wife what my dream plane is and she'll tell you.
Because I couldn't find my cell phone, I had to make 4 extra trips back to the plane, careful to shield an ear from a nearby NetJet APU while stealing a few more close looks. I could have been arrested for stalking.
Well, while the 8 pages here are full of tragedy, I'm feeling a bit better. Dreams can kill is easily as they inspire.
Limitations
Because I couldn't find my cell phone, I had to make 4 extra trips back to the plane, careful to shield an ear from a nearby NetJet APU while stealing a few more close looks. I could have been arrested for stalking.
Well, while the 8 pages here are full of tragedy, I'm feeling a bit better. Dreams can kill is easily as they inspire.
Limitations
Last edited:
Sorry Ted I did mis read.
The difference is that some may CHOOSE recurrent training. Certainly some do. I did recurrent in the Navajo a couple of times by choice. Your recurrent is by choice. I have never heard of an underwriter REQUIRING factory or insurance approved recurrent training for piston engine to get coverage. Some require a one time initial for certain cases such as low time pilots with zero in make and model. In a few rare cases there may even be financial incentives.
I suspect in the case you cited and it being a 135 op that the underwriter required it to keep the rate they had. He may have been using the recurrent as part of the required training under his 135 op specs. Would you have been required to have recurrent in the Navajo? When you add the 135, things do change.
Contrast this with the requirement for turbine to have recurrent to get coverage, period. It is not optional. Get the training or don't get covered. This is what I consider a clear line. JMO. I have been retired for more than two years so it may be different now
Bottom line is this is JUST a discussion with differing opinions, its all good.
Edit: I have some experience with the "approved instructor". The Cheyenne sim was moved to Texas and was not available for the replacement pilot and we got permission to use an approved instructor. Took a week to get approval. The replacement was a multi thousand hour KA pilot so they waved sim training. I was not impressed. You just can't practice those things you need the most with out the sim, IMO.
The difference is that some may CHOOSE recurrent training. Certainly some do. I did recurrent in the Navajo a couple of times by choice. Your recurrent is by choice. I have never heard of an underwriter REQUIRING factory or insurance approved recurrent training for piston engine to get coverage. Some require a one time initial for certain cases such as low time pilots with zero in make and model. In a few rare cases there may even be financial incentives.
I suspect in the case you cited and it being a 135 op that the underwriter required it to keep the rate they had. He may have been using the recurrent as part of the required training under his 135 op specs. Would you have been required to have recurrent in the Navajo? When you add the 135, things do change.
Contrast this with the requirement for turbine to have recurrent to get coverage, period. It is not optional. Get the training or don't get covered. This is what I consider a clear line. JMO. I have been retired for more than two years so it may be different now
Bottom line is this is JUST a discussion with differing opinions, its all good.
Edit: I have some experience with the "approved instructor". The Cheyenne sim was moved to Texas and was not available for the replacement pilot and we got permission to use an approved instructor. Took a week to get approval. The replacement was a multi thousand hour KA pilot so they waved sim training. I was not impressed. You just can't practice those things you need the most with out the sim, IMO.
Last edited:
Flight Safety has a good program, or at least used to. Being able to go through the drills and take them down over the edge is pretty valuable IME.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Sims can be psychologically damaging. I dont like simulated dying.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,563
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Thanks for the reminder, Troy! That's my favorite modern-day doctor killer example. I must be getting old.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I think that's the point. Show you how you can kill yourself when a reset button exists. I figure if the sim instructor can't kill me, he's not working me all that hard.
overdrive148
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,903
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
overdrive148
When I was demoing a Redbird FMX last month, I didn't even have to add any weather or wind shear - the guests would just kill themselves most of the time
Including a Turkish TV reporter on national television who decided it'd be great on short final, flaps out, 65kt to just swing the yoke 90* to the left as soon as I unpaused in the video you could see me reach over from the instructor side and grabbing the yoke at the top with one hand while applying full power. I barely saved us but it took her two more tries to actually touch down.
Last edited:
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
When I was demoing a Redbird FMX last month, I didn't even have to add any weather or wind shear - the guests would just kill themselves most of the time
The only time I got the red screen in the sim was when there was some major roll issue that the instructor said was the sim. So, just for fun, I decided to try to go inverted and fly that. At 100 ft, I didn't figure it would end well.
I think my instructor was frustrated that we didn't die at any of his tricks, but he wasn't very inventive.
overdrive148
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,903
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
overdrive148
With the instructor laptop plugged in, you can change a good portion of the current conditions without pausing with the click of the mouse. How would you like a 40kt front-left crosswind and gusts of 30 after that, low visibility, heavy snow, and a PFD and MFD failure?
The only problem was adding wind instantly jerked the sim around upon changing it. It scares a lot of people!