Is complex time important?

I would think the most important thing would be to fly in an airplane that is fast enough that you have to work a bit to keep up. While one can train and take a check ride for the comm in a Technical Advanced Aircraft, i.e. one with glass panel avionics, owning or flying those is likely to be more expensive than the older retractable aircraft. I think folks saying "oh it's just a switch" haven't flown complex aircraft, or perhaps haven't flown them very well. Descending in a slick aircraft and slowing it down to the point where you can deploy the landing gear is neither straightforward nor something you get out of a box. And it does ingrain some degree of energy management thinking, which one needs to fly larger aircraft.
 
There are some early Navions and I think Bos that lack controllable propellers. I hear the Aeromatic company is back in business.
 
So, if am understanding this correctly the 10 hours has to be done in a TAA complex plane? how about the check ride, I know a complex is not required for that, but is a TAA required during the check ride?
 
A Turbine, TAA, or Complex airplane not a necessarily a TAA complex airplane, but only if you're going for the single-engine class rating. Multiengine requires a turbine or complex. You don't need either a complex or TAA for the ride now.
 
Last edited:
A better question to ask is, is total time really important? I see little difference between 1000 hours and 10,000 hours, but see a big difference between 100 hours and 1000 hours. Speed of the aircraft also makes a big difference. 1000 hours in a Cessna 150 is vastly difference than in a 200 knot airplane. I don't think the type of panel and knobs you have makes any difference.
 
Total time is important, but so is something applicable to their operation (turbine time or the like). Time (and a type rating if applicable) in the type they need pilots for is always useful.
 
Most pilots struggle pretty hard learning a jet at 1000 hours...3000+ seems to make things significantly easier.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Most pilots struggle pretty hard learning a jet at 1000 hours...3000+ seems to make things significantly easier.
Click to expand...

Is that because things happen faster? The only reason I ask, is because I don't teach in miles, I teach in minutes. Makes transitioning to faster aircraft a non-event.
 
EdFred said:
Is that because things happen faster? The only reason I ask, is because I don't teach in miles, I teach in minutes. Makes transitioning to faster aircraft a non-event.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think it has more to do with the fact that they’ve figured out that the jet is still an airplane, the stuff they already know still applies, and all they have to learn is the specific operational stuff for the airplane (target pitch, power, etc.)
 
GregP said:
Hello folks,
I recently posted a thread on buying my own plane, whether it be a Maule or Cessna 182 for time building etc and to use for family traveling. I failed to mention that I am trying to aquire the 1.,500 hrs for my ATP so I can hopefully get on with a regional or local company that has some smaller King Air's or event Citations. Anyway, I was talking with a instructor the other day and he said they like lots of complex time. For example, a guy with 1,000 hours in a Mooney or Arrow would be more likely to get the job over someone with 1,000 hours in a Maule or Cessna 172. Any views on this or facts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Click to expand...

Check regional airlines websites for hiring minimums. Meet those and you are good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top