BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 13:52

Username Protected wrote:

I heard that if the plane uses a Jet engine, even if it is a single, you will need to take an annual checkride with an examiner. This is for single pilot operations. I think this will hurt the Cirrus Jet and others. Makes the single turboprops more desireable in my view.

The 61.58 checkride is what you are referring to. They should extend that to every turbine powered aircraft out. Do you really want someone flying a 300 mph aircraft with 8 people on board that just legally has to do a BFR with a CFI? IMHO, this is one of the reasons that the accident rate of "preventable" accidents is lower in jets.

The checkride is really not a big deal. You just need to be on your game, and you should be anyway. As Jason points out, most insurance requires it anyway.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 14:12

Username Protected wrote:

So if you fly 300 hours in a Pilatus this year are you really unsafe if you get checked out every other year? I don't see the challange in flying 300kt vs 200kt when enroute, your both going the same speed when in the "pattern". So yes, I think its ok to just have a BFR with a qualified CFI for part 91.

Regards,

Mike

Insurance doesn't mandate "Simcom". But they do mandate yearly training. I have options. Simcom just seems to be the easiest and most bang for the buck.

I'd be fine with going up with an instructor and doing a check ride instead. Doesn't matter to me.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 14:23

Would you do it every year if it wasn't required? It's hypothetical and one persons opinion, but I'm not clear how much value you get from it for the cost and time.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 14:51

Username Protected wrote:

Would you do it every year if it wasn't required? It's hypothetical and one persons opinion, but I'm not clear how much value you get from it for the cost and time.

I may do it more often if it wasn't required. I go up with the PC12 sales guys a couple times a year and have them critique my technique. It's very helpful and keeps you from getting lazy as you know. But since I have a requirement, it makes me sort of "save it up".

Simcom is kinda more in depth but I think their sim is a POS and it's sorta money wasted. But like I said, it's the most bang for the buck. Insurance seems to like Simcom. It's no hassle.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 16:34

My insurance dont ask for recurrent, only the initial at Simcom. I did a 3 day recurrent anyway this year with TBM expert John Elford in my plane. I learned more than Simcom.
I think its good training, mandatory not sure.

Username Protected wrote:

Would you do it every year if it wasn't required? It's hypothetical and one persons opinion, but I'm not clear how much value you get from it for the cost and time.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 16:45

Here is what I have learned...

Everybody needs recurrent training.

The people that need it the most are most opposed to it.

The people that need it the least are the most likely to seek it out...

If is not required by somebody, the FAA or the Insurance Company, even if it starts off regularly, it falls by the wayside....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 17:26

Getting recurrent training is a very good idea IMO. The pilot is the cause of an accident more often than not.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 17:42

I agree but Simcom is overated. I rather have in the plane training with more knowledgable instructors.

Username Protected wrote:

Getting recurrent training is a very good idea IMO. The pilot is the cause of an accident more often than not.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 20:04

Username Protected wrote:

Would you do it every year if it wasn't required? It's hypothetical and one persons opinion, but I'm not clear how much value you get from it for the cost and time.

Yes, I schedule a two-three day refresher twice a year. My last one at the start of December was cancelled due to ice. About to reschedule it for sometime in late January or February.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 21:33

Username Protected wrote:

Getting recurrent training is a very good idea IMO. The pilot is the cause of an accident more often than not.

If you felt like you needed it, then you should have come sooner...

The objective is to be able to handle an engine failure with smoke in the cabin in low IFR on the flight to Sim school or to pick up the instructor at the airline airport... Not on the trip home....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2013, 21:52

Username Protected wrote:

Getting recurrent training is a very good idea IMO. The pilot is the cause of an accident more often than not.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 07:48

I did my training for the Turbine Air at Rocket. It was very informative and worth while. I'd never go to Simcom if I didn't feel like it was worth the time and money.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 08:22

Username Protected wrote:

Here's my prediction and I've said this here before…… The future of general aviation/owner flown is:

Cirrus
Pilatus/TBM
Embraer
Cessna

All others will fall by the wayside and end in the junk heap or be gobbled up by one of the above.

I predict GA is gonna get a huge boost in the next few years thanks to mostly to Garmin but also to Cirrus. People want out of commercial aviation and into their own plane. Lot's of folks can afford to finance a $2MM plane if the operating costs are kept somewhat reasonable and training is not too onerous. Single engine allows for reasonable operating costs and automation/Garmin keeps training less onerous.

Not sure if you know this, but PC-12 sales have dropped significantly since 2009. It has gone from 100 delivered to 62. That's almost a 40% decline.

TBM sales declined by 40% during that period as well.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 09:28

Whatevs? All I care about is the last 6 months. Everything changed for everyone. You can't buy a PC12 right now. All that matters is now.

Why even make that point? All manufacturers probably lost sales in that period. Means nothing with regards to the thread.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 10:16

Username Protected wrote:

Whatevs? All I care about is the last 6 months. Everything changed for everyone. You can't buy a PC12 right now. All that matters is now.

Why even make that point? All manufacturers probably lost sales in that period. Means nothing with regards to the thread.

Actually over the last year turboprop sales increased from 2011-2012 yet TBM/Beechcraft/Pilatus/Meridian all either declined or stayed the same.

OT: Lancair Evolution