Best Option for Private Pilot to Multi Commercial Instrument Ratings

[Hudson Valley Amusement]

I am currently a ASEL private pilot and would like to get to Multi Commercial
Instument ASAP. I can dedicate full time to this and would like your opinions
on the best way to go about it.

There seem to be 2 schools of thought -
1- get my instrument and commercial in a Single Engine, then get my multi add
ons.
2- Get my multi first, then work on instrument and commercial in the multi.

I can understand the pro's and cons to both. Option 1 allows me to work on one
thing at a time since I am already comfortable in a single engine, however it
might be detrimental b/c I won't have any appreciatable multi time when I am
done. This will lead to problems with insurance rates if I am insurable at
all.
Option 2 on the other hand will be a more expensive option, and will require
learning a few new things at the same time, but will also build 150 or so hrs
in the multi when I have my ratings which will certainly help insurance
companies.

Additional info - I am currently at about 185 hrs. I am not looking to go to
the airlines, but rather I am looking to fly a Cessna 421 for my company.

Any suggestions?
thanks,
Mark

[John R. Copeland]

"Hudson Valley Amusement" > wrote in message =
...
>I am currently a ASEL private pilot and would like to get to Multi =
Commercial
> Instument ASAP. I can dedicate full time to this and would like your =
opinions
> on the best way to go about it.=20
>=20
> There seem to be 2 schools of thought -
> 1- get my instrument and commercial in a Single Engine, then get my =
multi add
> ons. =20
> 2- Get my multi first, then work on instrument and commercial in the =
multi.
>=20
> I can understand the pro's and cons to both. Option 1 allows me to =
work on one
> thing at a time since I am already comfortable in a single engine, =
however it
> might be detrimental b/c I won't have any appreciatable multi time =
when I am
> done. This will lead to problems with insurance rates if I am =
insurable at
> all.
> Option 2 on the other hand will be a more expensive option, and will =
require
> learning a few new things at the same time, but will also build 150 or =
so hrs
> in the multi when I have my ratings which will certainly help =
insurance
> companies.
>=20
> Additional info - I am currently at about 185 hrs. I am not looking =
to go to
> the airlines, but rather I am looking to fly a Cessna 421 for my =
company. =20
>=20
> Any suggestions?
> thanks,
> Mark

Instrument, Commercial, then Multi-Engine should be easiest.
You'll be challenged enough transitioning to the 421.
You wouldn't welcome the hassles of the other ratings at the same time.

[Michelle P]

Mark,
While you may be qualified in the FAA's eye's. The companies insurance
company will want you to have 500 hrs multi before they let you loose in
a twin for hire.
Michelle

Hudson Valley Amusement wrote:

>I am currently a ASEL private pilot and would like to get to Multi Commercial
>Instument ASAP. I can dedicate full time to this and would like your opinions
>on the best way to go about it.
>
>There seem to be 2 schools of thought -
>1- get my instrument and commercial in a Single Engine, then get my multi add
>ons.
>2- Get my multi first, then work on instrument and commercial in the multi.
>
>I can understand the pro's and cons to both. Option 1 allows me to work on one
>thing at a time since I am already comfortable in a single engine, however it
>might be detrimental b/c I won't have any appreciatable multi time when I am
>done. This will lead to problems with insurance rates if I am insurable at
>all.
>Option 2 on the other hand will be a more expensive option, and will require
>learning a few new things at the same time, but will also build 150 or so hrs
>in the multi when I have my ratings which will certainly help insurance
>companies.
>
>Additional info - I am currently at about 185 hrs. I am not looking to go to
>the airlines, but rather I am looking to fly a Cessna 421 for my company.
>
>Any suggestions?
>thanks,
>Mark
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Solo time is required for the commercial certificate, and there is no way in
the world that an insurance company will cover you in a twin without
hundreds of hours of twin time. Bad idea financially. Get the certificate
and rating in a single, then go for the MEL. Expect to be disappointed when
your company tells their insurer that they want to put you on their policy.
A 421 is a VERY demanding airplane (one of the few I have lost an engine in)
and a hangar queen.

Bob Gardner

"Hudson Valley Amusement" > wrote in message
...
>I am currently a ASEL private pilot and would like to get to Multi
>Commercial
> Instument ASAP. I can dedicate full time to this and would like your
> opinions
> on the best way to go about it.
>
> There seem to be 2 schools of thought -
> 1- get my instrument and commercial in a Single Engine, then get my multi
> add
> ons.
> 2- Get my multi first, then work on instrument and commercial in the
> multi.
>
> I can understand the pro's and cons to both. Option 1 allows me to work
> on one
> thing at a time since I am already comfortable in a single engine, however
> it
> might be detrimental b/c I won't have any appreciatable multi time when I
> am
> done. This will lead to problems with insurance rates if I am insurable
> at
> all.
> Option 2 on the other hand will be a more expensive option, and will
> require
> learning a few new things at the same time, but will also build 150 or so
> hrs
> in the multi when I have my ratings which will certainly help insurance
> companies.
>
> Additional info - I am currently at about 185 hrs. I am not looking to
> go to
> the airlines, but rather I am looking to fly a Cessna 421 for my company.
>
> Any suggestions?
> thanks,
> Mark

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Bob Gardner" > writes:

> Solo time is required for the commercial certificate, and there is
> no way in the world that an insurance company will cover you in a
> twin without hundreds of hours of twin time. [...]

This is simply not correct. Insurance will be of course more
expensive than for a c172, but on the smaller twins and private use,
is indeed available. Through a Canadian broker, Lloyd's started
covering me with just 70 hours on type (pa23-250). I gather from
other posts that, despite speculation of the cognoscenti, the actual
USA situation is not much worse.

- FChE

[C Kingsbury]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > writes:
>
> > Solo time is required for the commercial certificate, and there is
> > no way in the world that an insurance company will cover you in a
> > twin without hundreds of hours of twin time. [...]
>
> This is simply not correct. Insurance will be of course more
> expensive than for a c172, but on the smaller twins and private use,
> is indeed available. Through a Canadian broker, Lloyd's started
> covering me with just 70 hours on type (pa23-250). I gather from
> other posts that, despite speculation of the cognoscenti, the actual
> USA situation is not much worse.

A 421 has more in common with a B-17 than it does with an Aztec. Think of it
as a twin turboprop without any of the systems automation. The major
attraction is that you can buy a lot of performance for pretty short money
up front, particularly a year or so back when the wing spar AD was hanging
over everyone's head. But you'll probably pay it all back out in operating
costs eventually. At least if you buy a Cheyenne or MU-2 you get the comfort
of turbine reliability, all the more so considering how little you want to
lose an engine in a 421.

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"Hudson Valley Amusement" > wrote in message
...
> I am currently a ASEL private pilot and would like to get to Multi
Commercial
> Instument ASAP. I can dedicate full time to this and would like your
opinions
> on the best way to go about it.

One-third of the instrument rating is learning attitude flying- how to fly
S&L, make turns, climbs, and descents accurate by reference to instruments
only. This should be mastered in a slow, simple airplane first. Two-thirds
of it is learning procedures, which are basically independent of the
airplane, but will again be easier to master in a slower airplane until you
get thehang of it, which may take a good 15-20 hours or more. The commercial
ticket doesn't really require you to master any dramatically new skills, so
you might as well train for it in a twin if you can afford it.

Personally, I think the best thing to do in your case would be to head to
Fla. or Ariz. and knock your ratings out in minimum time and money, and then
come back and find yourself a good instructor-pilot to fly with you the
first 100 hours or so and really educate you. The insurance company likely
won't cut you loose anytime soon anyway so you might as well get used to it.

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:02:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>One-third of the instrument rating is learning attitude flying- how to fly
>S&L, make turns, climbs, and descents accurate by reference to instruments
>only

13-14 hours to learn how to atttitude fly?

Either you got a slow student or a bad instructor, in my opinion.

[C Kingsbury]

I guess I was a slow student.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:02:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> > wrote:
>
> >One-third of the instrument rating is learning attitude flying- how to
fly
> >S&L, make turns, climbs, and descents accurate by reference to
instruments
> >only
>
> 13-14 hours to learn how to atttitude fly?
>
> Either you got a slow student or a bad instructor, in my opinion.
>

[Roy Smith]

> wrote:
>>One-third of the instrument rating is learning attitude flying- how to fly
>>S&L, make turns, climbs, and descents accurate by reference to instruments
>>only
>
>13-14 hours to learn how to atttitude fly?
>
>Either you got a slow student or a bad instructor, in my opinion.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "learn how to attitude fly".
It's one thing to keep it straight and level for short periods of time
while concentrating hard. It another thing to hold heading and
altitude to tight tolerances and execute climbs, descents, and turns
for hours on end with almost no thought given to it, so you can devote
you entire attention to procedures. Add in silly maneuvers like steep
turns and more important stuff like partial panel and unusual attitude
recoveries, and it's a lot of work.

Once you got that stuff down cold, flying approaches is easy. My
instrument training had me doing approaches almost from day one. As a
result, I was strugging to keep up with the airplane and spent a lot
of time getting frustrated because I wasn't making any progress.

[[email protected]]

Probably bad instruction.

3-4 hours of attitude flying instruction at most should be plenty to
provide the skills to enable anyone to move on to navigational work
and procedures.

After all, all navigation/procedural work requires attitude flying, so
you will get plenty of practice and plenty of time over the next 35
hours or so of instruction to fine-tune any minor attitude flying
problems.

Any instructor who requires his instrument student to be perfect in
his attitude flying before moving on is just wasting his student's
money. 13-14 hours of attitude flying before moving on is a waste, if
you ask me (but maybe you're not asking).


On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:38:15 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>I guess I was a slow student.
>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:02:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >One-third of the instrument rating is learning attitude flying- how to
>fly
>> >S&L, make turns, climbs, and descents accurate by reference to
>instruments
>> >only
>>
>> 13-14 hours to learn how to atttitude fly?
>>
>> Either you got a slow student or a bad instructor, in my opinion.
>>
>

[[email protected]]

On 13 Dec 2004 10:49:32 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:

>Add in silly maneuvers like steep
>turns and more important stuff like partial panel and unusual attitude
>recoveries, and it's a lot of work.


Silly maneuvers like steep turns?

There ain't nothing, in my opinion, that sharpens up scanning like
making a steep turn, rolling out to hit a heading and altitude, and
then rolling into one in the other direction, without a significant
loss of altitude.

The steeper the turn, the better your scan had better be.

[C Kingsbury]

Now you've made me go and dig out my logbook. My original numbers were based
on guesswork going back two years to when I started working on my rating.

It looks like I spent maybe 5-6 hours primarily doing attitude flying before
moving on to approaches. It took me 60 hours to get ready for my test, which
included several significant breaks of 2-3 months in between lessons in
which much rust built up.

My original estimate of "25%" is attitude flying would really be more
correctly seen as the amount of time that passed before airplane control
started becoming more instinctive. At first I was spending most of my time
chasing the airplane through the maneuvers. I knew what I was supposed to
do, but didn't know how to do it. Later it got to the point that I
understood how things worked, but still had to really think about it.
Somewhere around 40 hours, "how to attitude fly" made it into the lizard
part of my brain and I didn't really have to think about it. To me, this is
the critical point at which moving into a more complex plane will not hurt
the student's progress. Before reaching that point, it seems to me that the
more complex plane would not just cost more money, it would actually retard
progress by overloading the student unnecessarily. I guess it's sort of like
the question of whether it's better for someone to learn to drive first in
an automatic, and learn a stick shift later if necessary.

-cwk.

> wrote in message
...
> Probably bad instruction.
>
> 3-4 hours of attitude flying instruction at most should be plenty to
> provide the skills to enable anyone to move on to navigational work
> and procedures.
>
> After all, all navigation/procedural work requires attitude flying, so
> you will get plenty of practice and plenty of time over the next 35
> hours or so of instruction to fine-tune any minor attitude flying
> problems.
>
> Any instructor who requires his instrument student to be perfect in
> his attitude flying before moving on is just wasting his student's
> money. 13-14 hours of attitude flying before moving on is a waste, if
> you ask me (but maybe you're not asking).
>

[Bob Moore]

wrote

> Probably bad instruction.

Probably not!

> 3-4 hours of attitude flying instruction at most should be plenty to
> provide the skills to enable anyone to move on to navigational work
> and procedures.

My flight school provided 8 hours of simulator basic attitude
flying and 6 hours of aircraft basic attitude flying before
moving on to radio navigation.

Bob Moore
Naval Aviator V-15753
ATP B-727 B-707 L-188
Flight Instructor Airplane, Instrument Airplane
PanAm (retired)

[John R. Copeland]

I used to work with a guy who flew B-29's over Japan in the 1940s,
and he told of watching his fighter escorts pop up out of the undercast
in all manner of crazy attitudes, shaking themselves level once in VMC.
He didn't seem to think well of the attitude-flying skills of fighter =
pilots.

> wrote in message =
...
> Your flight school could afford to overtrain its students.
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:56:55 GMT, Bob Moore >
> wrote:
>>
>>My flight school provided 8 hours of simulator basic attitude
>>flying and 6 hours of aircraft basic attitude flying before
>>moving on to radio navigation.
>>
>>Bob Moore
>>Naval Aviator V-15753
>>ATP B-727 B-707 L-188
>>Flight Instructor Airplane, Instrument Airplane
>>PanAm (retired)
>

[C Kingsbury]

> wrote in message
...
> Your flight school could afford to overtrain its students.
>

Red herring. The military has historically moved people from 0TT to jet PIC
in less time than civilian or airline ab-initio programs. The example is all
the more salient considering how picky they are about the students.

-cwk.

[Kyler Laird]

"Bob Gardner" > writes:

>Solo time is required for the commercial certificate, and there is no way in
>the world that an insurance company will cover you in a twin without
>hundreds of hours of twin time.

Fortunately there are insurance companies outside Mr. Gardner's world. I got
insured with ~60 hours of MEL and have just over 500 now. The place where I
did my MEL training would rent a multi to anyone who got their certificate
there.

Ask someone who knows about insurance. It's gotten tougher but the last
time I looked (for my wife) it was still possible.

--kyler

[Michael]

>Solo time is required for the commercial certificate

This is obviously and grossly incorrect.

14CFR61.129(b) For an airplane multiengine rating.
(4) 10 hours of solo flight time in a multiengine airplane or 10 hours
of flight
time performing the duties of pilot in command in a multiengine
airplane with an
authorized instructor

>there is no way in
>the world that an insurance company will cover you in a twin without
>hundreds of hours of twin time

This is also incorrect. Just recently (about a year ago) someone I
know bought a Twin Comanche to train in. He had NO multi time and NO
instrument rating. The insurance company required that he get the
private or commercial multi prior to solo, 20 hours of dual prior to
solo (all training towards private/commercial counted), and 10 hours
solo prior to carrying passengers. Just about any other twin would
have been easier to insure.

Michael

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Moore wrote:

> wrote
>
>
>>Probably bad instruction.
>
>
> Probably not!
>
>
>>3-4 hours of attitude flying instruction at most should be plenty to
>>provide the skills to enable anyone to move on to navigational work
>>and procedures.
>
>
> My flight school provided 8 hours of simulator basic attitude
> flying and 6 hours of aircraft basic attitude flying before
> moving on to radio navigation.

But must you were weren't a Chuck Yeager clone like mr. nowhwere. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

John R. Copeland wrote:

> I used to work with a guy who flew B-29's over Japan in the 1940s,
> and he told of watching his fighter escorts pop up out of the undercast
> in all manner of crazy attitudes, shaking themselves level once in VMC.
> He didn't seem to think well of the attitude-flying skills of fighter pilots.

I dunno, I think being able to fly aeobatics in IMC shows a high level
of skill at attitude flying.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

C Kingsbury wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Your flight school could afford to overtrain its students.
>>
>
>
> Red herring. The military has historically moved people from 0TT to jet PIC
> in less time than civilian or airline ab-initio programs. The example is all
> the more salient considering how picky they are about the students.

Yes, and the reason is that they get the fundamentals solid before
moving on. Many civilian instructors and flight schools move students
along too fast and this increases the total time in the end.


Matt

[C Kingsbury]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:33:42 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
>
> Well, as long as we are into logic fallacies, it woudl be a non
> sequitur to assume that simply because the U S Navy has a training
> requirement of n hours for its aviators, that the same requirement is
> a reasonable one for general aviation pilots.

Worst case we're talking an additional 8 hours of instruction, or roughly
$1000, for the average GA pilot. In the big scheme of things that's
chicken****, especially if it leads to better results.

[C Kingsbury]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>
> >there is no way in
> >the world that an insurance company will cover you in a twin without
> >hundreds of hours of twin time
>
> This is also incorrect. Just recently (about a year ago) someone I
> know bought a Twin Comanche to train in.
<snip>
> Just about any other twin would
> have been easier to insure.

It's one thing to say "you can't get insured in a twin unless you're Chuck
Yeager" which seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, but the OP is
talking about a 421, which is rather a bit more plane than a twinkie or even
a Baron.

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
>> Worst case we're talking an additional 8 hours of instruction, or
>> roughly $1000, for the average GA pilot. In the big scheme of things
>> that's chicken****, especially if it leads to better results.
> [...]
> Anyway, $1000 may be chickenfeed to you, but some people consider it
> real money.

I think the point is that time spent early on making sure the
fundamentals are solid is made up later because the student is better
prepared to handle more advanced topics. You can't navigate if you're
still struggling with BAI, and you can't fly approaches if you're still
struggling with navigation.

So, the question is not "Can the student afford to spend $1000 for 8
hours of BAI drills?", but "If the student skimps on BAI training, how
much more will the whole program end up costing him when he struggles to
fly approaches he's not ready to be flying yet?"

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:10:13 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

wrote:
>>> Worst case we're talking an additional 8 hours of instruction, or
>>> roughly $1000, for the average GA pilot. In the big scheme of things
>>> that's chicken****, especially if it leads to better results.
>> [...]
>> Anyway, $1000 may be chickenfeed to you, but some people consider it
>> real money.
>
>I think the point is that time spent early on making sure the
>fundamentals are solid is made up later because the student is better
>prepared to handle more advanced topics. You can't navigate if you're
>still struggling with BAI, and you can't fly approaches if you're still
>struggling with navigation.
>
>So, the question is not "Can the student afford to spend $1000 for 8
>hours of BAI drills?", but "If the student skimps on BAI training, how
>much more will the whole program end up costing him when he struggles to
>fly approaches he's not ready to be flying yet?"

I guess it depends on one's definition of "skimping".

I seldom spend more than 3-4 hours on attitude flying before moving
on, even though the student might need further improvement with his
attitude flying skills. My personal belief is, when the attitude
flying is good enough so as not to cause a distraction and interfere
with further learning, it's time to move on. It doesn't have to be
perfect. The skills will improve with practice while doing other
work. Every procedure turn is an opportunity to practice and improve
attitude flying skills.

I am satisfied with my results. My students rarely exceed 40 hours
of instrument time when they take their practical test, unless the
student comes with many previous hours logged, and I rarely have a
practical test failure, and I have never had a failure in 15 years of
teaching because of weak attitude flying skills.

I know other instructors with comparable records, and I know they are
not spending 12-14 hours of attitude flying training before moving on
to other phases.

But there is no single way of going at this stuff. I have changed
something after just about every rating I have ever done, because I
thought I could improve things in some way for the student.

So if you are satisfied that the students you turn out are adequately
trained, and you have trained them as efficiently as possible so that
they have not wasted their hard-earned time and money on a lot of
unnecessary stuff, what else can be said?

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:10:13 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>I think the point is that time spent early on making sure the
>fundamentals are solid is made up later because the student is better
>prepared to handle more advanced topics. You can't navigate if you're
>still struggling with BAI, and you can't fly approaches if you're still
>struggling with navigation.
>
>So, the question is not "Can the student afford to spend $1000 for 8
>hours of BAI drills?", but "If the student skimps on BAI training, how
>much more will the whole program end up costing him when he struggles to
>fly approaches he's not ready to be flying yet?"



I've always wondered about this:

What do you think the FAA had in mind when they determined the
training requirement under Part 61, which is 15 hours, I believe?


Certainly not 12-14 hours of attitude flying instruction, it is safe
to say.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> > Red herring. The military has historically moved people from 0TT to jet
PIC
> > in less time than civilian or airline ab-initio programs. The example is
all
> > the more salient considering how picky they are about the students.
>
> Yes, and the reason is that they get the fundamentals solid before
> moving on. Many civilian instructors and flight schools move students
> along too fast and this increases the total time in the end.

Really? I'd say they move along at a snails pace. How many students take
50-60 hours to get their private certificate and take a year to get those
50-60 hours? In the military it's non-stop, every day learning.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Stan Gosnell]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

> Really? I'd say they move along at a snails pace. How many students
> take 50-60 hours to get their private certificate and take a year to
> get those 50-60 hours? In the military it's non-stop, every day
> learning.

I think that's really the difference. With the military training, it's
all day, every day, and the incentive to do well is very high. Waiting
days, weeks, or even months between sessions means you start over, or
very nearly, each time. There is certainly a loss between flights even
if it's only a week in between. The more often the training is done, the
more is retained and the less total time is required, or if the total
time is the same, more training can be done during a concentrated
program.

Back when I was going through flight school, I knew that if I didn't
complete the course, I would be entering the jungle war games on foot,
and I did not want to do that, so I studied very hard.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Michael]

C Kingsbury wrote:
> It's one thing to say "you can't get insured in a twin unless you're
Chuck
> Yeager" which seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, but the
OP is
> talking about a 421, which is rather a bit more plane than a twinkie
or even
> a Baron.

Yes, it is. I was referring to planes that someone might actually
train or build time in - C-310's, Barons, Aztecs. The 421 is in a
completely different class. You have to go to FlightSafety (or
equivalent) AFTER you get your multi to get checked out.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Really? I'd say they move along at a snails pace. How many students
> > take 50-60 hours to get their private certificate and take a year to
> > get those 50-60 hours? In the military it's non-stop, every day
> > learning.
>
> I think that's really the difference. With the military training, it's
> all day, every day, and the incentive to do well is very high. Waiting
> days, weeks, or even months between sessions means you start over, or
> very nearly, each time.

When I did my private ticket, I did the flight portion in just over seven
weeks (44.5 hours @ three times a week 2 hrs each lesson). I was determined
not to repeat any part of the course just because I got rusty during an
interval. By taking and passing the written first, I was prepared for the
flight phase. Also, the instructor went over what he intended to cover in
the air so there were no surprises.

I don't know if that would work for every one, but it seems easy now,
looking back over all these years. Reading what some people struggle
through, I can only sympathize for their slow and unsteady progress.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Red herring. The military has historically moved people from 0TT to jet
>
> PIC
>
>>>in less time than civilian or airline ab-initio programs. The example is
>
> all
>
>>>the more salient considering how picky they are about the students.
>>
>>Yes, and the reason is that they get the fundamentals solid before
>>moving on. Many civilian instructors and flight schools move students
>>along too fast and this increases the total time in the end.
>
>
> Really? I'd say they move along at a snails pace. How many students take
> 50-60 hours to get their private certificate and take a year to get those
> 50-60 hours? In the military it's non-stop, every day learning.

You are confusing speed with time. Moving fast matters not a whit if
you are going in circles. As I said, the total time is longer in the
end if you move too fast initially and don't get the basics down.


Matt

[Michael]

I meant entry-level twin (C-310/Aztec/Baron and down) rather than the
421. The 421 is something you can't realistically train in (you will
destroy the engines) and nobody will insure you in that unless you go
to FlightSafety or equivalent anyway. I doubt the OP was planning to
train in the 421.

Just FYI, the Baron is slightly faster than a Twinkie and carries
significantly more, but it is MUCH easier to insure. The insurance
companies know the truth - it's much easier to fly.

Michael

[Hudson Valley Amusement]

<< I doubt the OP was planning to
train in the 421>>

I am the OP and no I don't plan on training in the 421 but rather in a
Seminole. I am leaning toward going to ATP or Ari - Ben for the accelerated
school. In both programs you get your Multi first and then do all subsequent
training in the Multi (instrument and commercial). When I graduate from those
programs, I will have 175-200 hrs of multi time which will be necessary for
insurance purposes in the 421. I do plan to fly a 421 in the future and after
I get about 250 hrs of Multi time I can then go to FlightSafety for my 421
training to keep the insurance co happy.

I should also state that I have about 15 hrs of instrument instruction already
in a c172.

The traditional route of getting instrument then commercial in a single then
getting multi would be less expensive initially, but considering that i need
about 250 hrs of multi time to be insurable in the 421 I would then have to
build multi time somehow and that won't be cheap.

It just seems that doing all the training in the multi makes more sense. Plus
it is intensive training, 3-5 hrs every day, so the learning curve should be
quicker. I understand the point that I want to get the basics down so I don't
fall behind.

[Michael]

>I am the OP and no I don't plan on training in the 421 but rather in a
>Seminole. I am leaning toward going to ATP or Ari - Ben for the
accelerated
>school. In both programs you get your Multi first and then do all
subsequent
>training in the Multi (instrument and commercial). When I graduate
from those
>programs, I will have 175-200 hrs of multi time which will be
necessary for
>insurance purposes in the 421. I do plan to fly a 421 in the future
and after
>I get about 250 hrs of Multi time I can then go to FlightSafety for my
421
>training to keep the insurance co happy.

That all sounds very sensible. You're right - nobody is going to
insure you in a 421 with 20 hours of multi time. I'm not sure you need
250, but you will certainly need 100 or more. I'm not familiar with
the Ari-Ben program, but quite a few people I know did ATP, including
some of my instructors. I've also taken a few checkrides with the
examiner who did the ATP rides locally. I know a reasonable amount
about the program, and it is much as you describe it.

You should realize that a huge chunk of that multi time you are going
to log will be safety pilot time - all your XC flying will be either as
safety pilot who also handles radios and maps or as hooded pilot who
only flies. The Seminoles are incredibly docile (think Arrrow with two
engines) and are equipped with dual 430's. In other words, don't be
concerned about being overloaded - that won't be your problem. Your
real problem will be the transition into the 421. I would recommend
that you get some experience in a rental C-310 first.

Michael

[Hudson Valley Amusement]

Micheal -

Thanks for your insight on my idea. I do know about the safety pilot/hooded
pilot way that ATP does it. I agree that the transition from seminole to 421
will be a big change, but I will also have an oportunity to fly right seat in
the 421 to get some experience before I even go to flight safety or similar.

Regarding the 310, I do have a few hours right seat in that as well and I like
your idea of using it as a stepping stone b/t the seminole and the 421.

Thanks again!