I doubt this would work as a business case, but if money were no object, but keeping it reasonable, I might suggest the following.
Aim is to produce a very well rounded PPL who is qualified to operate a pressurised SET on airways in a safe, professional manner. Total training budget of at least €150,000, similar to zero to hero ATP but with a higher proportion of real line type training.
The student would enjoy state of the art training which would blend service type training, bush pilot/mountain rating type training, and AOC style line proficiency training. Ground school would be flying training oriented, with an emphasis on PoF, Performance, Mountain rating and SOPs. Required exams would be accomplished via distance learning.
There would be an initial airline cadet type assessment, and the school would have service type training benchmarks which would result in an objective framework to washout students not making the grade. While the teaching climate would be relaxed instructors would be expected to achieve rigorous standards of flying precision and, in particular, situational awareness and airmanship.
Initial training would be in an aerobatic piston, ideally a brace of perfectly maintained SF.260, and would cover all aspects of handling, including standard aerobatics and precision spin training. A sub component would be tailwheel training in a larger tailwheel, eg Cessna 185 or Beaver, with a mountain rating. At conclusion of this phase the student would earn a PPL, Night rating, Tailwheel endorsement, Mountain rating, complex/high power endorsement and Basic aerobatics. Estimated TT of 100 hours, of which 20 hours solo and 20 hours tailwheel. There would have been 20 hours of line type navigation exercises, including a minimum of ten hours solo NAV. Approximately 10 hours of initial I/F instruction.
The next phase would cover turbine engines, pressurisation, high altitude operations, IR and airways line training. Ground school would be intensive, full time, especially on systems, weather and IFR ops. At the conclusion of training the student would hold an IR, TR and sufficient line training to be insured in a SET. As typically insurance on an SET may require 500 TT and commercial licences, the training programme would have to be approved by an underwriter.
This phase of training would require a further 100 hours, of which 25-50 would be LOFT type training after passing the IR, with the expectation of a further 50 hours of LOFT after completion. Very rigorous emergency procedures training in the SIM and aircraft, including PFL, emergency descent, upset recovery training, and systems failure drills. Ability to exercise the mountain rating in the SET would include a Courchevel sign off for aircraft weighing more than 3 tonnes.
The underwriter would require type recurrent training every six months with a proficiency check.
My thesis is that if you reverse engineer very proficient, safe PPLs (meaning private operators not flying in a regulated commercial operation) flying SET or jets, you may find they carried out similar training in any event, perhaps not in a SF.260. €150,000 in the context of the capital cost of an SET, seems quite good value.
Add ons might be type conversion on a Harvard, formation flying, or competition aerobatics.
(not really serious)
IMO obtaining a mountain rating with 100h TT, of which 20h are solo (including the training for the rating), is quite a stretch *. That’s not to say that this (and tailwheel experience) wouldn’t be a very useful training.
I’d start the “luxury PPL” with … a glider license. Still the most natural way to learn pure and simple stick and rudder flying and get a feeling for the air, no?
* While not totally relevant, the soon-to-become obsolete Swiss national mountain flying regs mandate 200 h TT as requirement.
Zorg, fair cop! I was trying to balance the usual zero to hero curriculum with some real world General Aviation utility flying. Also trying to bridge the gap between grassroots tailwheel farm strip flying and the airways SET crowd, Euroga being a broad church.
This monster might fit the bill, although I like to be able to move my tailwheel aircraft around without the need for a tractor.
@Zorg I think Robert is thinking more in FAA terms as you can see by the complex/ high power – we kind of have those as well in EASA land, but you would need a twin turboprop or a jet for those to be relevant (which means TR, which means 100 hours wouldn’t be enough). Or even tailwheel endorsement (here it’s a SEP variant which needs differences training). While FAA, IIRC, doesn’t have mountain rating, the training could be provided. Interestingly, EASA’s mountain rating doesn’t have any time requirements IIRC.
I would start with sailplanes as well. And EASA offers a natural progression. You can get LAPL(S), then add TMG (basically a SEP with large wingspan capable of soaring) extension and then get PPL(A) with just 15 hour prescribed minimum (you need I think 23 hours PIC on TMGs after getting the extension to qualify). TMG hours also count towards the 50 PIC XC hour IR minimum up to 40 hours. I would choose DG-1001 as a trainer (Arcus is a superior XC machine, but DG is aerobatic and I would want to include aerobatics).
