Why are multiple engines different?

61.31 (2) Be receiving training for the purpose of obtaining
an additional pilot certificate and rating that are
appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the supervision
of an authorized instructor; or



"new_CFI" wrote in message
news:N61Wg.6139$eZ4.1024@dukeread06...
| "Bob Gardner" wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj-
| :
|
| Another aspect of the question...the requirements for
the basic license
| require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard
to imagine any
| insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a
student pilot. Not
| impossible, just unlikely.
|
| Bob Gardner
|
|
|
| Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An
instructor is
| onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts
as solo? I think
| the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

new_CFI wrote:

Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

solo is defined in the regs, and that means noone else on
board (the only exceptions I can recall concerns airships);
Now, the British on the other hand have some weird logging
regulations that include a Pu/s (pilot under supervision)
different from instruction; is this what you had in mind?

--Sylvain

Sylvain wrote in
t:

new_CFI wrote:

Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor
is onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo?
I think the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

solo is defined in the regs, and that means noone else on
board (the only exceptions I can recall concerns airships);
Now, the British on the other hand have some weird logging
regulations that include a Pu/s (pilot under supervision)
different from instruction; is this what you had in mind?

--Sylvain

I think it was just the schools policy for timebuilding in their multi.
No solo flight, they had supervised solo's. You had to take one of
their instructors along.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?


There is a considerable difference between multi-engine and single
engine flying. Engine failure is only the beginning. Fuel systems are
much more complex, as are electrical and other systems. It affects even
the cabin heating system. Even taxiing is significantly different.
Neither is is just a few procedures for the failure of an engine; the
fact is that an engine failure in a twin will have you over on your
back in seconds if you don't watch it. This is especially true in the
Beech 58.

The trouble with flight simulators is that they don't really feel like
airplanes. If you want to simulate an engine failure with your Beech
58, try this: turn the heat in your living room all the way up, but
pack your feet in bags of ice. Take a several cold tablets so that you
are feeling dizzy and disoriented. Have a screaming two-year old
kicking the back of your chair while a couple goons shake your chair
back and forth. Without warning, two more goons will grab your controls
and try as hard as they can to turn them in the direction of the failed
engine, while your own arms and hands are tied to the arms of the
chair. Another goon will bounce your monitor up and down very rapidly
until it breaks, and all the time the stereo will be turned up as loud
as it will go with engine noise and a controller constantly giving you
instructions. All that will not be quite as tough as a real engine
failure, but it is a start.

Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?


Of course you can get an initial license in a twin. It is unusual, but
not that unusual. Good luck finding insurance, though.

cjcampbell writes:

There is a considerable difference between multi-engine and single
engine flying. Engine failure is only the beginning. Fuel systems are
much more complex, as are electrical and other systems. It affects even
the cabin heating system. Even taxiing is significantly different.
Neither is is just a few procedures for the failure of an engine; the
fact is that an engine failure in a twin will have you over on your
back in seconds if you don't watch it. This is especially true in the
Beech 58.

The trouble with flight simulators is that they don't really feel like
airplanes. If you want to simulate an engine failure with your Beech
58, try this: turn the heat in your living room all the way up, but
pack your feet in bags of ice. Take a several cold tablets so that you
are feeling dizzy and disoriented. Have a screaming two-year old
kicking the back of your chair while a couple goons shake your chair
back and forth. Without warning, two more goons will grab your controls
and try as hard as they can to turn them in the direction of the failed
engine, while your own arms and hands are tied to the arms of the
chair. Another goon will bounce your monitor up and down very rapidly
until it breaks, and all the time the stereo will be turned up as loud
as it will go with engine noise and a controller constantly giving you
instructions. All that will not be quite as tough as a real engine
failure, but it is a start.

So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
cjcampbell writes:

There is a considerable difference between multi-engine and single
engine flying. Engine failure is only the beginning. Fuel systems are
much more complex, as are electrical and other systems. It affects even
the cabin heating system. Even taxiing is significantly different.
Neither is is just a few procedures for the failure of an engine; the
fact is that an engine failure in a twin will have you over on your
back in seconds if you don't watch it. This is especially true in the
Beech 58.

The trouble with flight simulators is that they don't really feel like
airplanes. If you want to simulate an engine failure with your Beech
58, try this: turn the heat in your living room all the way up, but
pack your feet in bags of ice. Take a several cold tablets so that you
are feeling dizzy and disoriented. Have a screaming two-year old
kicking the back of your chair while a couple goons shake your chair
back and forth. Without warning, two more goons will grab your controls
and try as hard as they can to turn them in the direction of the failed
engine, while your own arms and hands are tied to the arms of the
chair. Another goon will bounce your monitor up and down very rapidly
until it breaks, and all the time the stereo will be turned up as loud
as it will go with engine noise and a controller constantly giving you
instructions. All that will not be quite as tough as a real engine
failure, but it is a start.

So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?

A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.

cjcampbell wrote:
So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?

A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.

another point is again: insurances. You won't get to fly the
big pretty multi- unless you can show a number of hours in
multi-... so they fill a niche as trainers and time builders.
Besides the fact that it's fun, I mean, all these additional
buttons and levers and dials and things that can go piiiiing...

--Sylvain

Sylvain wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:
So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?
A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.

another point is again: insurances. You won't get to fly the
big pretty multi- unless you can show a number of hours in
multi-... so they fill a niche as trainers and time builders.
Besides the fact that it's fun, I mean, all these additional
buttons and levers and dials and things that can go piiiiing...

That's one reason why I like flying twins. It really impresses the
people who don't know anything about airplanes! Although I've got to
say, the additional buttons and levers and dials and things really
scared the last person I took flying. g

cjcampbell writes:

A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.

There wouldn't be any trace of sour grapes in this, would there?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
cjcampbell writes:

A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.

There wouldn't be any trace of sour grapes in this, would there?

Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.