BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 14:55

Username Protected wrote:

Any idea what the washout rate is on type rating for the Phenom 100 vs the Phenom 300?

Type rating courses are designed such that >95% of the people are going to pass. As long as you pay attention and put effort into it, then it’s highly unlikely you will fail. Even if you are doing badly they incorporate an extra sim session into the initial. If it’s needed the boss doesn’t even need to know.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 15:35

Username Protected wrote:

Any idea what the washout rate is on type rating for the Phenom 100 vs the Phenom 300?

Type rating courses are designed such that >95% of the people are going to pass. As long as you pay attention and put effort into it, then it’s highly unlikely you will fail. Even if you are doing badly they incorporate an extra sim session into the initial. If it’s needed the boss doesn’t even need to know.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 16:44

Username Protected wrote:

I couldn't do what Mike C does. I'm not that smart or have the time or energy.

That's nonsense.

Don't let others create some mythology around what I do, it isn't that complicated or hard.

For example:

In my recent phase 1-5, mechanic finds a crack in my RH lower TR bucket. It is caused by an old repair done badly which caused a stress concentration.

Attachment:

n618k-cracked-rh-tr-bucket.png

My options are:

1. Do another field repair.

2. Buy the cracked angle and replace it on the bucket.

3. Find a used TR bucket.

I decide against another field repair, unlikely to be a good long term solution, just moves the crack point somewhere else. The angle has a PN, but there's no stock anywhere and the labor to unrivet the old and rivet in the new isn't trivial. So my options quickly converge to finding a serviceable used bucket. I'm slightly concerned those may be rare, but it turns out they are not. My 4 buckets are all original after 10,000 hours, so apparently they don't break all that often in the field.

I send email to my salvage folks and I get back 3 replies within hours. BAS has two, Yingling has two, and Atlanta Air Salvage has one. Prices vary from $5K to $13K. Yingling says they price match, so I pick one of theirs and buy it for $5K (it was off an Ultra). It arrives, mechanic inspects it, finds it in good shape, and it is on the plane in an about 2 hours and fits nicely. Now I don't have a TR bucket with a field repair any more, which feels better than what I had.

Attachment:

n618k-rh-tr-deployed.png

My total time invested was about 1 hour in the whole transaction. Any idiot who can write email can do it, though I admit some idiots can't write email.

This is not magic, just simple stuff. Crack in part, look up PN, send email to salvage yards, choose which one to buy, have it shipped. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be an airplane owner.

The TR crack was my largest finding in my phase 1-5 inspection. After 6 years, there wasn't a lot of squawks. These planes are well built.

I do still have the cracked TR bucket. Maybe it is worth something, don't know. There are shops who repair these things, so maybe I will sell it to them someday, but I haven't contacted them yet. So maybe I'm out less than $5K eventually.

The ecosystem around the legacy airplanes is much larger and more diverse than it is for the new airplanes. This gives you choices and choices result in far lower costs and less downtime.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 20:06

Username Protected wrote:

Looks a lot sexier than a Slotation

Yea they are sexy…especially when they are blue!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 20:18

Username Protected wrote:

Mike - you severely underestimate how much most people (read:non engineer or technical types) like dealing with mechanical things and failures.

These people go to the factory service center and give them a blank check.

They pay a lot for the privilege of being uninformed even at the most basic level.

This is how you can ask two operators of the same type and get wildly different answers for what it costs to fly. The guy who flies MCT in the mid 30s and takes it to a service center will easily pay double what I do per mile.

There are a fair number of Citation operators such as myself who are involved in their airplane's care to at least some basic level. It doesn't take that much. A reasonable shop, the parts catalog, and contacts at salvage yards can save you a ton.

If I had a service center fix all the things on my plane that have been fixed since I owned it, I'm sure it would have cost me $250K more than my approach. That's not an exaggeration.

An oner who is involved is also vastly better educated about the systems which helps in an emergency, and they are also far more helpful to the mechanic when trying to debug an issue. On that last point, the service center standard debugging technique is to replace the most expensive part in any system and see if that fixes it. That feels like a joke but it really isn't.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 20:33

Username Protected wrote:

What value do you place on one hour of your time?

My "return" on maintenance time I invest is at least $1000/hour.

There's nothing I can do to make more.

My solution is often LESS hours than having someone else just do it.

Example:

My hydraulic pump weakness (which I noticed before it became an issue that grounded the airplane) was solved for 2 hours of my time and $1800 expense ($200 pump, $1600 labor to install). I didn't have to move my plane for the fix which saved a bunch of money and time. The only "skill" I needed was looking up the PN (which was on my status sheet or the mechanic can tell me), and sending emails to salvage yards. Wow, that was so hard!

The factory service center solution (which I investigated with Textron just to see) was to replace my pump with a newer style that required an adaption kit and new lines. Estimated cost was $36K. Flying to the service center, plus the hours to either stay with the plane or travel back and forth would be at least 2 days, 16 hours of my time.

My solution: 2 hours, $1800, 1 day down time.

Factory solution: 16+ hours, $36,000, 5 days down time.

I saved 14 hours and $34,200. I spent 2 more days at work rather than at the service center.

For an owner operator, the idealism you can just write checks and it doesn't involve your time is bogus. If you don't monitor what goes on with your airplane, you will be paying through the nose and be less safe. You can hire a manager for the plane, but that is yet more money being spent and you have to manage the manager.

The people who want to be that hands off need to talk to NetJets. They really shouldn't be owner operators, IMO, or they need staff.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 20:52

Username Protected wrote:

Any idea what the washout rate is on type rating for the Phenom 100 vs the Phenom 300?

Type rating courses are designed such that >95% of the people are going to pass. As long as you pay attention and put effort into it, then it’s highly unlikely you will fail. Even if you are doing badly they incorporate an extra sim session into the initial. If it’s needed the boss doesn’t even need to know.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 21:10

Username Protected wrote:

I’ll trade money for comfort, convience and expedience without hesitation. The old saying “time is money” is true.

Trade a few dollars for a dictionary .. lol

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 21:37

Flight Safety is ground school, training sim sessions and then test in final sin session for Citations.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 21:44

Just a clarification to Philip’s post above, the progressive check was for a Part 91 operator only. The Part 135 training has always included a check ride, 3 strike rule, and no/limited time to do anything other than profiles and check ride prep.

The normal 135 recurrent (5 day event) is:

Session 1 - High and hot, short field, emergency descent, TAWS, TCAS
Session 2 - Cold operations and check ride prep
Session 3 - checkride, with the 3 strike rule

The frustration that Philip is expressing has been my frustration for more than 15 years; limited time to learn, train the the checkride - silly approach but FAA controlled.

Brad

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 21:58

Username Protected wrote:

I partially disagree with your "95%" statement. For the initial Type Rating CAE is pretty strict and many pilots fail. However, for the recurrent training, that all of us are mandated to take every 12 months, that used to be the case; not any more. About 5 years ago CAE implemented a check ride 3-strikes program for recurrent training. The progressive check was out and a 'train then test' syllabus became the standard. They claimed the FAA mandated the change; I call BS!. I personally know three pilots who failed their recurrent check ride and had to reschedule another sim cycle ($10K+). The EJOA and PPO have been hounding CAE to improve the training. IMHO CAE has been worthless these past years. I have started going to CAE every 24 months (insurance waiver) and using in-aircraft training for the odd years.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about. Once you have passed your Type Rating check ride, the annual 'recurrent' training was a "progressive" sim; you check the boxes as you go and can retrain and retry during the same sim session. The "progressive" sim used to be as follows: SIM 1 - flight planning, pre-flight, maneuvers (steep turns, stalls series). If you nailed these items then you can move on to rejected take-off, SE precision, SE non-precision, and SE go-around. If you nailed these items then in SIM 2 all you needed to complete was the circle-to-land, no flaps, and a few other major malfunctions. If you were on your game that left 1/2 of SIM 2 and all of SIM 3 open to actually learning something new such as cold weather, high-altitude issues, hot/high departures, other catastrophic system failures.

With the "train then test" format you spend SIM 1 and SIM 2 "training" all the above and then SIM 3 is a formal check-ride. If you are outside of ATP standards 3 times total during the check-ride you FAIL, session over. That leaves no SIM time for any real world learning/training and is VERY stress full having to complete a darn check ride to maintain your type rating and your job! For example, during the 'training' SIM you could have nailed the SE go around but on your check ride if you are off runway heading by a couple degrees STRIKE, one dot high on final STRIKE. What further complicates this process is the training is to an imaginary "profile" which NO ONE IN THE REAL WORLD FLIES. The profile dictates VREF at the FAF and (Phenom 300) FLAP 2 for the circle to land moving to FLAP 3 only when landing is assured (Flap 2 and 3 are the same flap angle in the Phenom 300, the only difference is software logic, Flap 2 is a Take Off and Flap 3 is Land).

RANT OFF.

Are there any Citation pilots here that can way in if their SIM went to 'train then test' format?

Hi Philip - I think you have summarized it right.

Like their attitude on maintenance however, I’m guessing at least several of the legacy Citation pilots here aren’t going to CAE or Flightsafety for sim training simply because they charge too much and they can save hundreds of thousands doing it on their own.

To your question, I’m guessing Corey T would know.

But I will admit, if I could get $50MM or better liability insurance with in-plane training I think I might have to look really closely at that!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 22:04

Username Protected wrote:

What value do you place on one hour of your time?

My "return" on maintenance time I invest is at least $1000/hour.

There's nothing I can do to make more.

My solution is often LESS hours than having someone else just do it.

Example:

My hydraulic pump weakness (which I noticed before it became an issue that grounded the airplane) was solved for 2 hours of my time and $1800 expense ($200 pump, $1600 labor to install). I didn't have to move my plane for the fix which saved a bunch of money and time. The only "skill" I needed was looking up the PN (which was on my status sheet or the mechanic can tell me), and sending emails to salvage yards. Wow, that was so hard!

The factory service center solution (which I investigated with Textron just to see) was to replace my pump with a newer style that required an adaption kit and new lines. Estimated cost was $36K. Flying to the service center, plus the hours to either stay with the plane or travel back and forth would be at least 2 days, 16 hours of my time.

My solution: 2 hours, $1800, 1 day down time.

Factory solution: 16+ hours, $36,000, 5 days down time.

I saved 14 hours and $34,200. I spent 2 more days at work rather than at the service center.

For an owner operator, the idealism you can just write checks and it doesn't involve your time is bogus. If you don't monitor what goes on with your airplane, you will be paying through the nose and be less safe. You can hire a manager for the plane, but that is yet more money being spent and you have to manage the manager.

The people who want to be that hands off need to talk to NetJets. They really shouldn't be owner operators, IMO, or they need staff.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 22:35

Username Protected wrote:

Type rating courses are designed such that >95% of the people are going to pass. As long as you pay attention and put effort into it, then it’s highly unlikely you will fail. Even if you are doing badly they incorporate an extra sim session into the initial. If it’s needed the boss doesn’t even need to know.

I partially disagree with your "95%" statement. For the initial Type Rating CAE is pretty strict and many pilots fail. However, for the recurrent training, that all of us are mandated to take every 12 months, that used to be the case; not any more. About 5 years ago CAE implemented a check ride 3-strikes program for recurrent training. The progressive check was out and a 'train then test' syllabus became the standard. They claimed the FAA mandated the change; I call BS!. I personally know three pilots who failed their recurrent check ride and had to reschedule another sim cycle ($10K+). The EJOA and PPO have been hounding CAE to improve the training. IMHO CAE has been worthless these past years. I have started going to CAE every 24 months (insurance waiver) and using in-aircraft training for the odd years.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about. Once you have passed your Type Rating check ride, the annual 'recurrent' training was a "progressive" sim; you check the boxes as you go and can retrain and retry during the same sim session. The "progressive" sim used to be as follows: SIM 1 - flight planning, pre-flight, maneuvers (steep turns, stalls series). If you nailed these items then you can move on to rejected take-off, SE precision, SE non-precision, and SE go-around. If you nailed these items then in SIM 2 all you needed to complete was the circle-to-land, no flaps, and a few other major malfunctions. If you were on your game that left 1/2 of SIM 2 and all of SIM 3 open to actually learning something new such as cold weather, high-altitude issues, hot/high departures, other catastrophic system failures.

With the "train then test" format you spend SIM 1 and SIM 2 "training" all the above and then SIM 3 is a formal check-ride. If you are outside of ATP standards 3 times total during the check-ride you FAIL, session over. That leaves no SIM time for any real world learning/training and is VERY stress full having to complete a darn check ride to maintain your type rating and your job! For example, during the 'training' SIM you could have nailed the SE go around but on your check ride if you are off runway heading by a couple degrees STRIKE, one dot high on final STRIKE. What further complicates this process is the training is to an imaginary "profile" which NO ONE IN THE REAL WORLD FLIES. The profile dictates VREF at the FAF and (Phenom 300) FLAP 2 for the circle to land moving to FLAP 3 only when landing is assured (Flap 2 and 3 are the same flap angle in the Phenom 300, the only difference is software logic, Flap 2 is a Take Off and Flap 3 is Land).

RANT OFF.

Are there any Citation pilots here that can way in if their SIM went to 'train then test' format?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2025, 09:31

Username Protected wrote:

I’ve been working for CAE for almost 10 years, albeit part time. My >95% statement is anecdotal, but not without a fair bit of experience. What the actual number is, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure CAE, FSI, or anyone else is not going to run programs unless the success rate is quite high given that customers are paying $50K to well north of $100K for the training for that reason alone.

The idea that CAE or anyone else is driving clients to fail to squeeze more money out of them doesn’t pass the BS test you mentioned. For pretty much all programs there’s competition between providers. The 135s alone are huge customers with sometimes hundreds if not thousands of pilots. If your theory had any merit this would surely drive them to the competition lock stock and barrel and it just wouldn’t take them long to figure it out. A big 135 walking out the door would seriously injure if not destroy their business. Nobody from the instructors, to management, and even the FAA wants students to be anything less than successful. That’s just the nature of instructors and the business and it doesn’t make sense otherwise.

The 2-sim recurrent still exists. That’s how every single one of mine has been done. If you or your company wants “real world” training, pay for another sim session. Either CAE or FSI will be happy to take your money and do whatever you want. Some do. Most don’t.

Not aware that the competition is that stiff. Not many options in the Citation world beyond FSI and trying to get booked with them can be a challenge.

WRT the ground school, two sim training sessions, one sim test session format, I can see the frustration. Ground school sessions, not the most efficient use of time and then you get slammed into the sim, on a very compressed time to task ratio. Too much time in GS, not enough sim time, really no sim time, outside of practice for the test and taking the test. But have fun trying to book additional training at FSI. Those sims and sim instructors are booked flat out.

Like Phil, when able, per insurance, I try to do my recurrent in-plane. More efficient use of time, doing the actual tasks in the plane that flies like a plane and not a sim, not spending time in ground school sessions that are inefficient, and then slamming stuff in the sim.

I know, I know, there are scenarios in the sim that can be flown more realistically than in tne plane, like a V1 cut. But beyond that not sure the advantage of the sim.

YMMV, but some of use prefer in-plane for a number of reasons.
Also, given how slammed the sim centers are, very difficult to get additional time.

With regard to competition? Am not aware that there is much if any in the Citation or the Phenom world. Buffet is not stupid. He bought a business that is damn near a monopoly. Only real competition is in-plane and the insurance companies, in many instances, restrict the in-plane training events.

May be different at CAE, but this is the view from the outside ref FSI.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2025, 10:28

Username Protected wrote:

Not many options in the Citation world beyond FSI

Places that offer Citation training in level D simulators include at least this list:

Flight Safety
CAE
Simcom
Loft
RTC

There is quite a lot of choice.

Quote:

trying to get booked with them can be a challenge.

It certainly was harder during COVID but not as bad now.

Quote:

I know, I know, there are scenarios in the sim that can be flown more realistically than in tne plane, like a V1 cut. But beyond that not sure the advantage of the sim.

There are failures that you can't do in the plane easily or safely, like manual gear extension, instrument failures, TR emergencies, windshear, etc.

You get a lot of hours flying the actual plane, but you don't get hardly any hours flying it during some failure. The sim provides that.

I alternate sim and in airplane training for my recurrent because each has value.

Quote:

YMMV, but some of use prefer in-plane for a number of reasons.

Tell me how you train for inadvertent TR deployment in the airplane, for example. There's no good way to do this as far as I know.

I find the in airplane training telegraphs what is about to happen so the surprise factor is mostly absent. In the sim, not so much. If the sim instructor triggers a TR deployment, you will be surprised and that test your true reaction time.

Quote:

May be different at CAE, but this is the view from the outside ref FSI.

Your view differs from mine substantially. The training ecosystem around Citations is robust, and using a sim is very valuable.

Mike C.