Best Machine For.............

[downwash]

412, did I miss your mentioning that you trained on 47's and are now teaching on 300's? Does your memory stretch far enough to make an objective comparison?

 

This question has been bandied about so many times I'm reminded of Frank Sinatra's old quote, "Whatever get's me through the night, baby." :up:

 

Whatever ship you trained on is usually the best, and whatever one gets you through will do just fine, thanks.

[Rosco]

Dee Dub Y'a,

 

How are y'a ol'boy? Haven't seen your mug in this neck of the woods in a while.

 

Good to have you back

 

Cheers

 

R

 

Never mind........read your other post.

 

Carry on, didn't want to highjack the thread.......should have sent a PM.....dont want to make anyone mad and get the sticks off the ice again.....my apologies.

 

R

[downwash]

Nil sweat, Rosco. We needed a little lightening up here, anyway. :up:

[412driver]

hey downwash,

 

great to see you back. actually my 100 hours of training was 60 hours R22; 15 hrs 47 and 15 hrs on 206. did NOT like the 22 at all. 47 is a stable platform easy to fly with the stabilizers and all and the 206, well that turbine had me so excited i.....uh ..um ...nevermind..............

 

the 300 is a great machine for training. stable yet complex (i.e. trim) also the point i really like is one can let the students get to the point were they see their errors rather than having to snatch control too soon.

 

i also like the fact that the 300 (and 47) are NOT governed. it amazes me the amount of high time guys out there that have trouble maintaining rpm when the governor is switched to manual on a turbine.............

 

yes, it's true that operators are using 22's and 44's more than 300's but i feel that will change soon. we have been doing cost comparisions and are finding that when factoring everything the hourly costs are just about the same possibly favouring the 300!

 

and finally, true, you are always loyal to the machine that you trained on cuz let's face it..........

 

everyone still thinks fondly of the one that "popped our cherry" :up:

[SMALL MOVEMENTS]

By the way "412driver", your 100 hours, as told by you, consisted of 60 hours R22, 15 hours Bell 47 and 15 hours Bell 206. This makes a total of 90 hours. I hope only your counting is bad...

According to the Jan/Feb/Mar 2004 issue of the "HELICOPTERS" magazine the 2004 operators directory lists a total of

11 Bell 47's

21 Hughes/Schweizer 300's

47 Robinson R22's and

46 Robinson R44's.

These are facts and obviously the demands of Canadian operators, not a personal opinion.

 

SM

[412driver]

small movements,

 

thanks for catching that. 0500 typo, the 47 was 25 hours......

 

interesting stats, i'll have a look at those......

[jetbox]

I don't want to start a war with you Hueylover but I think you're way off base with the R22. May I remind you that the Bell JetRanger was dubbed the "Deathranger" for many years after it first appeared on the market in the late 60's early 70's. We're talking about M/R blade bolts shearing, turbine wheels coming apart and rupturing fuel systems, and many other mechanical problems that were ironed out through the years.

And what about the Astars? Does the term "falling star" bring back any memories from the early 80's. The fact is that Jetrangers and Astars had a lot more mechanical problems than the R22'ever had and yet, nobody hesitates to climb in one of those.

The biggest problem with the R22 is that it has a low inertia rotor system which means if the engine quits, you better drop that pole first and ask questions later. Most of the accidents that happened in the early days of the R22 were due to poor training or poor decision making from the pilots.

If R22/R44 are so unsafe, why are they the highest selling helicopters in the world right now???

As far as picking a school for a wannabe pilot, you guys all had valid points but I think too much emphasis is being put on which school to attend and which instructor is going to teach you. The school and instructor won't make you a better pilot, only you can do that. Better schools will teach you better habits but they still can't turn an idiot into a Chuck Yeager!

When we hire low time pilots, we could give a sh-- where he/she trained!

First we see how well he/she flies on the check ride. We would rather hire a pilot that needs a little straightening out in terms of procedures and habits but demonstrates excellent natural ability to fly the a/c and shows good judgment making ability than someone who has all the procedures down pat but scares the bejesus out of you every time he/she is behind the cockpit.

Second, if we have to choose between two qualified pilots, we will choose the one that trained on the same type of helicopter that he will be flying for our company. In our case, it's the R22 and R44.

Before you go out and decide which school to train at, remember that no school in the world is going to turn you into a brilliant pilot. You either have a head on your shoulders or you don't!!

Also, consider what the odds are that your fist comercial job will be flying a Bell 47 or a Hughes (Schwitzer) 300. Pretty slim if you ask me!!!

I would rather hire a guy/girl that has 100hrs in the same type of A/C I'm going to want him to fly.

No offence Hueylover

[skullcap]

Jetbox;

 

About 2 years ago I was giving a young fella a 206 endorsement, all his time(105 hours) were in a piston machine. He could fly ok but didn't seem to understand alot of what he was doing even though he did it ok. He could do a tranlating turn without any problem getting out of a hole, even though it wasn't needed, when asked why he did it he said that it was the only way the machine he trained in would get out of a confined area. After alot more ground school I asked him one day if his instructor spoke much with him while doing his training to which he answered, the man hardly spoke atall. I know which school he trained at and the name of the instructor. Will NEVER hire one of his students, doesn't matter if he is a friggin rocket scientist, if this young man wasn't paying for the endorsement it would have been a very short inaugral ride. Maybe you should care about where your new hires are trained at. If the robbie is so great and easy to fly then whats the problem with hiring someone who trained in a 300 if the 300 is harder than the robbie would be a cake walk. My company doesn't operate a piston but guess what, will probably hire someone who trained in one one day. Maybe that is why I would prefer someone trained in a turbine, but that is riduculous to expect of all new pilots. As you say look at the person first, but don't forget that garbage in = garbage out.

 

My point is that it is my opinion that the school and more so the instructor are more important than the type trained in.

 

As a side note the young man in question did aproximately ten hours with another intructor where he initially trained and that "person" spoke to him while they flew, the results were astounding. Being an instructor is one our industries most thankless jobs and these men and women should be respected and payed accordingly rather than go by way of the south, where alot of pilots build time instructing to get a "real Job". Nothing makes my blood boil more than this type of thinking. Think of the different stories how some pilots learned to do vertical reference and compare which place you'd want to send a pilot to for vr training. And don't think that the companies doing abinitio don't take shortcuts or do less thorough training because TC monitors them. HA!

 

Don't take offense but just cause the huey doey don't like robbies then that doesn't mean that all training companies using r22's are equal.

 

sc

[Hueylover]

No offence taken gentlemen.

 

Everyone is allowed their opinion. I may have been too militant on my views of the R22 but then again, Frank Robinson himself said the R22 was NOT developed to be a trainer!!

 

Also, Skullcap brings up an excellent point as to schools and instructors. I also believe that one needs to look at instructor/student ratio's and instructor experience. Very vital points those. :up:

 

Again, thank you all for your insights.

 

Hueylover

[downwash]

Small Movements and 412, some more 'stats.' A peek at the Canadian Aircraft Register reflects that there are 41 47's, 134 R22's, 96 R44's and 34 269/300's currently registered. I haven't found the numbers in 'Helicopters' too reliable, not through their fault, but because many companies don't update their information with the mag.

 

As usual, it's interesting to see how most factors come into play on any subject if we talk about it long enough. Wouldn't disagree with too much that's been said - just the degree of emphasis that sometimes accompanying it.

 

The perennial argument about whether it's better to train on a machine that's easy to fly, or a 'hard' one, only gets resolved in individual minds. I don't think anyone would argue that it it's probably desireable to get the best end product but, if that cuts out too many that would eventually be OK, are we achieving the best result. The latter is probably where we have been, and still are and, until ALL factors are addressed (particularly quality of instruction [including the experience factor], suitability of equipment, integrity of schools and staffs, and appropriateness of regulatory standards) we'll motor on the way we are, which could surely be better, but could easily be one **** of a lot worse.