Just signed up for my 61.58 + SPE training for the jet.

For two courses, within 13 months so that covers 2 years, I paid $6400/each at Flightsafety, level C sim in Atlanta. This is a 4 day course and includes the single pilot exemption.

This was pretty aggressive pricing, so I went with it. FSI was also the cheapest CE-500 initial when they quoted it, which was not my expectation. You can't get it done in the airplane for less money by the time you add instructor and airplane operation cost.

Here the little Citation II tucked between a Canadair and a Sovereign in one wing of the sim hall:

Mike C.

To operate a piston twin with the same proficiency as a turboprop, you need to have about the same training effort and investment. I'd even argue it is HARDER to fly the piston twin than the turboprop because the turboprop engine is simpler to manage and will not fail nearly as often. It is certainly harder to handle an engine out on a Baron than on a Citation 501.

The extra training mandated or expected for turboprops is not because they require extra proficiency, it is just for that class of airplane, extra training is imposed by regulation or insurance. Basically, because you fly a more expensive airplane, you can afford to get more expensive training. Money and safety are intimately tied together in aviation, and this is another such

The training for basically any turbine airplane, be it a turboprop single, a turboprop twin, or a jet, is roughly the same. Ground school is systems and performance. Flight school is procedures and emergencies. These programs take 2 to 4 days for a recurrent and the number of days depends more on the provider and student than the airplane in question.

I personally enjoy training. It is a vacation from all my other responsibilities, so I unplug and immerse in the training. A pilot who hates training is a scary thing.

I would not let the training requirements materially affect the choice of airplane. Choose what works best, what fits in your budget, and get the proper training to handle it.

In the end, it is really about the money. You buy what you can afford.

Mike C.

Then you don’t have a turbine budget… turbine AMU’s have 5 digits, sometimes 6.

Mike I do think up front you need a little time in the plane, mainly for the ground handling landing etc. But the insurance companies aren’t dumb. The data on sim training is good, prob why your insurance mandated sim in your citation. In aircraft training is good, but you just can’t cover the emergencies and hit the instruments as hard. Really hard to find actual 200 OC for a dozen approaches or 0/0 for real misses and engine outs to mins. Piper gives factory sponsored sim training for the GX000 piper turbines. GX000 started in 2009 and there has not been a fatal in a Piper GX000 turbine. Hard to beat that record. Not a panacea, but seems darn effective. I have done a lot of in aircraft training. But I never feel as prepared as I am after a day in the sim.

I hear you. But realize it is a transitory condition, and you WILL benefit from flying with a mentor and make you safer.


In the end, this will cost more money and more mentoring than making the jet jump directly. You'll need to do the King Air initial, then King Air mentoring, then jet initial, then jet mentoring.

If you want to be in a jet, go get in a jet and make it work. I didn't do that due to money, the MU2 was a stretch as it was. I was fearful it would financially force me out. It actually did the opposite by enabling my business to grow. I have similar concerns about the jet becoming financially untenable, especially with fuel prices as they are, but it is still manageable, and until it isn't, I'm keeping that fantastic machine.

You will find plenty of Citation pilots out there to be mentors, so you can probably schedule reasonably well. I could. The ideal guy is a full time pro pilot who isn't flying enough. They often have 90% of their days off, you just have to work around the employers schedule. That was the case for my Citation mentor. It worked out.

The day you can finally fly on your own will be all the sweeter for it. I distinctly remember my first solo in the MU2 and in the V. What a sense of gratification that was.


Basically, about the same. The MU2 has the force of regulation (part 91 subpart N now, used to be an SFAR) but realistically, your insurance is going to force you into King Air type school anyway. The courses are pretty much the same format. There is no special weirdo task for the MU2 that other planes don't have. Ground school is systems and performance charts, flight school is procedures and emergencies. You will feel overwhelmed at first, but it will come.

Finding MU2 mentors could be an issue. Not that many out there. Some number of instructors who can be hired to do this.


300 knots will change your life in a way that 200 knots simply doesn't. Pressurization is great since it enables higher altitudes, but 200 knots is awkward since you are bucking 100 knot winds sometimes up there.

Mike C.

For the jets with better sims, yes. For the turboprops with lesser sims, marginal. Maybe I'm basing this on the MU2 sims which weren't all that good (and fixed base, not full motion).


Realistically, the highest risk for the new pilot is the pilot not handling their airplane. The risk from a real in flight emergency is fairly small compared to them screwing up. So if you can, do the initial in the actual airplane.

Another benefit is that the in plane instructor will know what is normal and not for the actual airplane, which can be different in the sim. Little things like, how does the heater work, is that twitchy needle normal, etc. The plane is new to the pilot so they don't know what is normal or not.

Once you get past that, then do a sim recurrent. You can do it a week later if you want, or 3 to 6 months. You are in your mentoring phase at that time anyway, so you are not alone. If you get the sim before you solo, all is good.


Which is why you don't really need to sweat that stuff. A new pilot shouldn't get the plane into those conditions that early.

I am absolutely for sim training, but I think an in plane initial is best so your first exposure is with the real airplane and you won't have sim idiosyncrasies to unlearn.

Take it slow, have conservative personal limits, and only nibble at the edges over time.

Mike C.

Ok Mike. Maybe I worked too hard but what plane did you just sign up for the SPE? The CII or the V? I thought you could already fly the V solo. And if it’s the C2, what’s the benefit to you over the V you already have the type rating for? Like I said, brain fried and I may not have understood you. It is a cute little sim though among the big ones.

Todd,

If you’re ready for a turbine, you should consider the Commander. You’re welcome to fly one with me.

You get points for noticing that.

The way it works is that the CE-500 type rating covers a range of airplanes, 500, 501, 550, 551, S550, 560, Bravo, Encore. It is not practical to have a sim for each type or configuration, so what they do is have a 550 (Citation II) sim in which they do all the training. So I will be doing a CE-500 61.58 + SPE in a Citation II.

Then, they do a little classroom course called "differences training". For me, I will be taking the "Citation II to V, Recurrent Academic Differences" course. This is a 1 hour course that is primarily on the system differences. Things like the II has electric flaps, the V is hydraulic, and so on. It is really no big deal as the 500 series Citations all fly about the same, so it really is just the systems differences.

When I leave FSI, I will be fully qualified to fly a Citation II and a Citation V. If I wanted to fly other models, just add more differences courses and I am all set.

The main effective difference is not model to model, but avionics. Nothing out there is my setup with Garmin. That's okay, I can live in the steam gauge plus GNS 530W world for a few days. I use the sim for flying, not avionics. This also helps me maintain my ability to fly without the EFIS crutches like synth viz, flight path marker, etc. Training should be hard so real flying is easy.

FSI used to have a Citation V sim in Long Beach, but they decommissioned it a few years ago. FSI does have an Ultra sim in Wichita, but for whatever reason, they charge about double to use it over the II (otherwise, I would use the Ultra). The Ultra has the Honeywell Primus 1000 CRT screens which is nothing like my airplane, though. I believe the II and the Ultra are the only two 500 series sims FSI runs right now.

Mike C.

That's being overly dramatic.

If you are an involved owner, with a cooperative shop, you can dramatically reduce costs over the fellow who hands his keys to the factory service center.

Case in point, the largest part expense I have had, BY FAR, was I overhauled my ACM turbine in the Citation. It had 5000 hours on it and that's about the time it needs it.

Textron exchange was $24,279 with a $50,000 core deposit, and with my seized unit, I would not get all the core charge back per a note on the Textron pats website. My total potential exposure was $75K. Yikes!

After some research, I found the overhaul vendor in California, Qualified Technologies Corp, sent him my unit, and had it overhauled for $11,575 *including* an entirely new compressor rotor. They also overhauled my heat exchange for $500. Not a typo! It cost me more to ship it there and back than the overhaul. My ACM is back together and works very nicely now, and it will for the next 5000 hours. Here's the reassemble ACM package unit, the black part is the overhauled heat exchanger, the silver part in the center of it is the turbine. Under the supervision of the mechanic, I rebuilt the package unit myself, though I doubt that saved a ton of money, but I wanted to do it.

BTW, the ACM in the Citation is the same basic model as the one that was in my MU2, and in Commanders, so this isn't a "jet" thing per se.

I also can tell you about a failed hydraulic pump issue that would cost $40K at a service center that I solved for $2K.

My plane had a lot of little issues when I bought it, the ACM and hydraulic pump among them, but now I hardly do anything any more to it. I find problem early and I fix them so they stay fixed long term. This is the primary way to reduce costs.

There are a LOT of ways to manage costs if you want to. I seriously could not afford my airplane if I had a factory service center maintain it and that's where the eye watering numbers come from.

Mike C.

You can go from a Baron to a jet... and get insurance. Not sure that they will require a mentor pilot for "a year". Typically based on hours. Just fly the hell out of the plane and get the hours & cycles in.

Agree with Ciholas that Baron to King Air to jet will be longer and more expensive.
Also agree with time in plane, with mentor pilot to get acquainted with avionics, systems, flows, etc, then going to sim training.

But it is possible to go from Baron to jet.

For the record, most Commanders do not have a Sundstrand.

100 percent correct. In fact you can go from a single-engine piston to a jet (Obviously plus and MEL rating). I just insured a Mustang this week for an 800 hrs Bonanza driver. Yes he will need 75 hrs of mentoring after type rating but he plans to knock that out in 60 days time. Unless you are extremely low time I doubt very much a year of 'dual' will be required - unless of course you wish to be dual to allow for a slightly sharper insurance premium.

I'm of the mindset buy your last airplane first - accept the transition training requirements to make the move safely with the mentoring required and you'll be better off in the end not needing an interim or step-up aircraft.

Just out of curiosity, why do Cheyenne's never seem to be included in the "upgrade from piston to turbine" conversations on BT?

Fairly robust construction, no ugly phase inspections, not tricky to fly.

What's the catch?

Jason Crandalls words keep ringing in my ears whenever jet training comes up:

"When you factor in the training time, it's literally the slowest airplane I've ever owned".

There's truth in those words.

Everything is skewed and geared for professional pilots that can "amortize" that training time and cost over maybe a 1000hrs in a year as charter/airline pilots. For the normal owner/operator, that flies maybe 100-150hrs per year, it's a big time commitment. You'd be a lot faster in just about anything else door to door when all is said and done. That's why turboprops have their place - almost as fast, less recurrent training time.