Hello Newsgroup Pilot's

I'm looking to get type rated in a buiseness jet such as CJ Citation Lear or
Hawker because of the requirement to be "Jet Typed" for succsessful
processing of a pilot application at several airlines or crew leasing
agencys. Some have the requirement to be typed in a jet aircraft even when
not operating corporate jets in the lower size class.
I would appreciate information on training for such type ratings in small
schools or under part 61 outside of the big training organisations like
Flight safety , Simuflite, Simcom, pan am etc.

thanks Ron

Ron Elmer > wrote:

> I'm looking to get type rated in a buiseness jet such as CJ Citation Lear or
> Hawker because of the requirement to be "Jet Typed" for succsessful
> processing of a pilot application at several airlines or crew leasing
> agencys. Some have the requirement to be typed in a jet aircraft even when
> not operating corporate jets in the lower size class.

Before you spend money on a type rating make sure that you understand
what they're actually looking for. Most companies won't even look at
your resume unless you have a type rating AND (emphasis strongly added)
actual flying time in type as either SIC or PIC.

Just the type rating won't get you anywhere especially if it's in an
airplane they don't even operate.

Southwest for instance, _requires_ a 737 type for candidates. BUT they
also require something like 1000 hrs. Jet PIC.

I would recommend to talk to your prospective companies and find out IF
a type rating will actually improve your chances of getting hired, and
if yes, what kind of type rating would do.

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

"Jens Krueger" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Ron Elmer > wrote:
>
> > I'm looking to get type rated in a buiseness jet such as CJ Citation
Lear or
> > Hawker because of the requirement to be "Jet Typed" for succsessful
> > processing of a pilot application at several airlines or crew leasing
> > agencys. Some have the requirement to be typed in a jet aircraft even
when
> > not operating corporate jets in the lower size class.
>
> Before you spend money on a type rating make sure that you understand
> what they're actually looking for. Most companies won't even look at
> your resume unless you have a type rating AND (emphasis strongly added)
> actual flying time in type as either SIC or PIC.
>
> Just the type rating won't get you anywhere especially if it's in an
> airplane they don't even operate.
>
> Southwest for instance, _requires_ a 737 type for candidates. BUT they
> also require something like 1000 hrs. Jet PIC.
>
> I would recommend to talk to your prospective companies and find out IF
> a type rating will actually improve your chances of getting hired, and
> if yes, what kind of type rating would do.
>
> Cheers,
> Jens
>
> --
> I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

Hello Jens,

i do reserch for jobs since my professional flying career started 4 yars
ago. You are sure to check for what companys are actually looking for. Most
of them look for rated pilots in the aircraft they operate. My former
employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the reason
that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company procedures.
Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high degree
of standarisation possible.
The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to escape
the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important. As far I
was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the rating
for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is company
paid.
Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap I dont
use the rating later in that class
afterwards.

Ron

Ron Elmer > wrote:

> My former
> employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the reason
> that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company procedures.
> Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high degree
> of standarisation possible.

That's certainly true at some operators.

> The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to escape
> the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.

What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?

> As far I
> was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the rating
> for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is company
> paid.

That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?

> Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap I dont
> use the rating later in that class
> afterwards.

Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing, just
to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
tough...

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

When I got my first type rating in a jet, it HAD to be done in an airplane.
I don't know if that has changed. But my class was going to go for 5 days.
At the last minute United Airlines threw in 3 guys that were upgrading to
captain in a 757. United was not going to use one of their real 757s for
training so these guys were getting their first rating in a Citation. Then
they could get the 757 rating in a simulator.

This threw a whole dimension into the training, since these guys needed to
go to the sim the NEXT day. So all four of us had a crash type rating school
that lasted into the night. "Examiner on staff" took on a whole new meaning.
I was dangerous when I got out that night. Probably still am!

Karl


"Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Elmer > wrote:
>
>> My former
>> employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the
>> reason
>> that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company procedures.
>> Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high
>> degree
>> of standarisation possible.
>
> That's certainly true at some operators.
>
>> The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to
>> escape
>> the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.
>
> What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?
>
>> As far I
>> was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the rating
>> for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is
>> company
>> paid.
>
> That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
> pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
> but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
> operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?
>
>> Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap I
>> dont
>> use the rating later in that class
>> afterwards.
>
> Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing, just
> to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
> like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
> If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
> operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
> think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
> tough...
>
> Cheers,
> Jens
>
> --
> I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

"Jens Krueger" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Ron Elmer > wrote:
>
> > My former
> > employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the
reason
> > that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company procedures.
> > Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high
degree
> > of standarisation possible.
>
> That's certainly true at some operators.
>
> > The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to
escape
> > the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.
>
> What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?
That means I look forward to upgrade into jet aircraft.
Escaping means not that I am on the run or that I dont like turboprop
flying, in fact it is very valuable flight time regarding to experience with
weather short field ops etc. but now I got the opportunity to transition to
jets so why not taking it.
>
> > As far I
> > was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the
rating
> > for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is
company
> > paid.
>
> That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
> pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
> but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
> operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?

They operate the whole Boeing line on ACMI lease contracts to Airlines all
over the world under the FAR's of the respective country and SOP's of the
operator where they leased to.
>
> > Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap I
dont
> > use the rating later in that class
> > afterwards.

> Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing, just
> to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
> like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
> If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
> operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
> think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
> tough...
The reason is just that they dont have the aircrafts sitting on the ramp
like flight schools the 150's to do a flight training they have the aircraft
to pull out of revenue service, much more to loose as a few dollars on fuel
and tires.

The case for me to do a quick cheap rating in any jet aircraft because it
will be my first jet rating all further ratings can then be completed in the
simulator thats the way.
Do you know a place where I can take such a rating???

Ron









>
> Cheers,
> Jens
>
> --
> I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

"Jens Krueger" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Ron Elmer > wrote:
>
> > My former
> > employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the
reason
> > that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company procedures.
> > Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high
degree
> > of standarisation possible.
>
> That's certainly true at some operators.
>
> > The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to
escape
> > the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.
>
> What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?
That means I look forward to upgrade into jet aircraft.
Escaping means not that I am on the run or that I dont like turboprop
flying, in fact it is very valuable flight time regarding to experience with
weather short field ops etc. but now I got the opportunity to transition to
jets so why not taking it.
>
> > As far I
> > was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the
rating
> > for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is
company
> > paid.
>
> That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
> pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
> but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
> operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?

They operate the whole Boeing line on ACMI lease contracts to Airlines all
over the world under the FAR's of the respective country and SOP's of the
operator where they leased to.
>
> > Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap I
dont
> > use the rating later in that class
> > afterwards.

> Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing, just
> to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
> like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
> If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
> operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
> think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
> tough...
The reason is just that they dont have the aircrafts sitting on the ramp
like flight schools the 150's to do a flight training they have the aircraft
to pull out of revenue service, much more to loose as a few dollars on fuel
and tires.

The case for me to do a quick cheap rating in any jet aircraft because it
will be my first jet rating all further ratings can then be completed in the
simulator thats the way.
Do you know a place where I can take such a rating???

Ron









>
> Cheers,
> Jens
>
> --
> I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

Hi kage ,
thanks for the posting thats is the way I have to do it. I am not in that
hurry like you at the time but should complete it this year. Could you tell
me a place for a crash type rating??
you email me directly if you dont want to post it on the net:

Thanks
Ron


"kage" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> When I got my first type rating in a jet, it HAD to be done in an
airplane.
> I don't know if that has changed. But my class was going to go for 5 days.
> At the last minute United Airlines threw in 3 guys that were upgrading to
> captain in a 757. United was not going to use one of their real 757s for
> training so these guys were getting their first rating in a Citation. Then
> they could get the 757 rating in a simulator.
>
> This threw a whole dimension into the training, since these guys needed to
> go to the sim the NEXT day. So all four of us had a crash type rating
school
> that lasted into the night. "Examiner on staff" took on a whole new
meaning.
> I was dangerous when I got out that night. Probably still am!
>
> Karl
>
>
> "Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ron Elmer > wrote:
> >
> >> My former
> >> employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the
> >> reason
> >> that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company procedures.
> >> Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high
> >> degree
> >> of standarisation possible.
> >
> > That's certainly true at some operators.
> >
> >> The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to
> >> escape
> >> the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.
> >
> > What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?
> >
> >> As far I
> >> was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the
rating
> >> for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is
> >> company
> >> paid.
> >
> > That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
> > pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
> > but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
> > operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?
> >
> >> Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap I
> >> dont
> >> use the rating later in that class
> >> afterwards.
> >
> > Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing, just
> > to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
> > like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
> > If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
> > operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
> > think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
> > tough...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jens
> >
> > --
> > I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.
>
>

Hi kage ,
thanks for the posting thats is the way I have to do it. I am not in that
hurry like you at the time but should complete it this year. Could you tell
me a place for a crash type rating??
you email me directly if you dont want to post it on the net:

Thanks
Ron


"kage" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> When I got my first type rating in a jet, it HAD to be done in an
airplane.
> I don't know if that has changed. But my class was going to go for 5 days.
> At the last minute United Airlines threw in 3 guys that were upgrading to
> captain in a 757. United was not going to use one of their real 757s for
> training so these guys were getting their first rating in a Citation. Then
> they could get the 757 rating in a simulator.
>
> This threw a whole dimension into the training, since these guys needed to
> go to the sim the NEXT day. So all four of us had a crash type rating
school
> that lasted into the night. "Examiner on staff" took on a whole new
meaning.
> I was dangerous when I got out that night. Probably still am!
>
> Karl
>
>
> "Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ron Elmer > wrote:
> >
> >> My former
> >> employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the
> >> reason
> >> that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company procedures.
> >> Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high
> >> degree
> >> of standarisation possible.
> >
> > That's certainly true at some operators.
> >
> >> The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to
> >> escape
> >> the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.
> >
> > What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?
> >
> >> As far I
> >> was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the
rating
> >> for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is
> >> company
> >> paid.
> >
> > That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
> > pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
> > but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
> > operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?
> >
> >> Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap I
> >> dont
> >> use the rating later in that class
> >> afterwards.
> >
> > Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing, just
> > to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
> > like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
> > If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
> > operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
> > think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
> > tough...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jens
> >
> > --
> > I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.
>
>

Ron,

I don't have a Trade-a-Plane handy, but there are always several quickie
type rating schools advertised there.

KG
"Ron Elmer" > wrote in message
...
> Hi kage ,
> thanks for the posting thats is the way I have to do it. I am not in that
> hurry like you at the time but should complete it this year. Could you
> tell
> me a place for a crash type rating??
> you email me directly if you dont want to post it on the net:
>
> Thanks
> Ron
>
>
> "kage" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
>> When I got my first type rating in a jet, it HAD to be done in an
> airplane.
>> I don't know if that has changed. But my class was going to go for 5
>> days.
>> At the last minute United Airlines threw in 3 guys that were upgrading to
>> captain in a 757. United was not going to use one of their real 757s for
>> training so these guys were getting their first rating in a Citation.
>> Then
>> they could get the 757 rating in a simulator.
>>
>> This threw a whole dimension into the training, since these guys needed
>> to
>> go to the sim the NEXT day. So all four of us had a crash type rating
> school
>> that lasted into the night. "Examiner on staff" took on a whole new
> meaning.
>> I was dangerous when I got out that night. Probably still am!
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> "Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Ron Elmer > wrote:
>> >
>> >> My former
>> >> employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the
>> >> reason
>> >> that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company
>> >> procedures.
>> >> Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high
>> >> degree
>> >> of standarisation possible.
>> >
>> > That's certainly true at some operators.
>> >
>> >> The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to
>> >> escape
>> >> the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?
>> >
>> >> As far I
>> >> was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the
> rating
>> >> for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is
>> >> company
>> >> paid.
>> >
>> > That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
>> > pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
>> > but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
>> > operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?
>> >
>> >> Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap
>> >> I
>> >> dont
>> >> use the rating later in that class
>> >> afterwards.
>> >
>> > Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing,
>> > just
>> > to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
>> > like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
>> > If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
>> > operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
>> > think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
>> > tough...
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Jens
>> >
>> > --
>> > I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.
>>
>>
>
>

Ron,

I don't have a Trade-a-Plane handy, but there are always several quickie
type rating schools advertised there.

KG
"Ron Elmer" > wrote in message
...
> Hi kage ,
> thanks for the posting thats is the way I have to do it. I am not in that
> hurry like you at the time but should complete it this year. Could you
> tell
> me a place for a crash type rating??
> you email me directly if you dont want to post it on the net:
>
> Thanks
> Ron
>
>
> "kage" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
>> When I got my first type rating in a jet, it HAD to be done in an
> airplane.
>> I don't know if that has changed. But my class was going to go for 5
>> days.
>> At the last minute United Airlines threw in 3 guys that were upgrading to
>> captain in a 757. United was not going to use one of their real 757s for
>> training so these guys were getting their first rating in a Citation.
>> Then
>> they could get the 757 rating in a simulator.
>>
>> This threw a whole dimension into the training, since these guys needed
>> to
>> go to the sim the NEXT day. So all four of us had a crash type rating
> school
>> that lasted into the night. "Examiner on staff" took on a whole new
> meaning.
>> I was dangerous when I got out that night. Probably still am!
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> "Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Ron Elmer > wrote:
>> >
>> >> My former
>> >> employer looked for FO's with less than 1000 total time only for the
>> >> reason
>> >> that more experienced where more difficult to adapt company
>> >> procedures.
>> >> Captains where upgraded only from own FO's. This system made a high
>> >> degree
>> >> of standarisation possible.
>> >
>> > That's certainly true at some operators.
>> >
>> >> The reason for my posting is just that I have got the opportunity to
>> >> escape
>> >> the turboprop if I show a Jet rating which one is not important.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "escaping" the Turboprop?
>> >
>> >> As far I
>> >> was told is the reason therefore to save the touch and goes on the
> rating
>> >> for the aircrafts these company operates, because the simulator is
>> >> company
>> >> paid.
>> >
>> > That sounds a little fishy... So you are saying that they want you to
>> > pay for a type rating, so that they can waive t&g's on your IOE? Sorry,
>> > but that doesn't make sense to me... What kind of equipment are they
>> > operating and where? Do they operate 121, 135 or 91?
>> >
>> >> Thats why I look for such a rating quality training or not just cheap
>> >> I
>> >> dont
>> >> use the rating later in that class
>> >> afterwards.
>> >
>> > Why would you want to pay for something that you are not utilizing,
>> > just
>> > to save the company some dollars for fuel and tires... Doesn't sound
>> > like this company has a very high regard for crew training/proficiency.
>> > If they treat new hires like that, what do you think how this company
>> > operates the line, let alone recurrent training and so on... I don't
>> > think I would want to work for such a company. I know, times are
>> > tough...
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Jens
>> >
>> > --
>> > I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.
>>
>>
>
>

Ron Elmer > wrote:

> Do you know a place where I can take such a rating???

The only places I can recommend are SimCom and SimuFlight. For eveything
else google for "type rating". But, please, remember, you get what you
pay for.

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

Ron Elmer > wrote:

> Do you know a place where I can take such a rating???

The only places I can recommend are SimCom and SimuFlight. For eveything
else google for "type rating". But, please, remember, you get what you
pay for.

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

Ron Elmer > wrote:

> Do you know a place where I can take such a rating???

The only places I can recommend are SimCom and SimuFlight. Maybe you
want to ask that question on either pprune.org (EU) or
forums.flightforum.com (US).

Good luck and stay safe!

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

Ron Elmer > wrote:

> Do you know a place where I can take such a rating???

The only places I can recommend are SimCom and SimuFlight. Maybe you
want to ask that question on either pprune.org (EU) or
forums.flightforum.com (US).

Good luck and stay safe!

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.