Multi-Engine Before Commercial?

Sorry to hi-jack this thread for a couple of questions...

I have my FAA Commercial and Instrument with Single Engine privilages, this
was gained last year. At the end of June this year I am undergoing training
for my FAA Multi Addon to my Commercial together with Multi Instrument
Privilages.

From what I understand all I need to do is a multi engine course and pass a
checkride / oral during which I am required to demonstrate single engine IFR
approaches. Is this all that is required? Or do I need to complete the
dual cross countries again, in a multi? Of course all of the Commercial
requirements were met in the Single and as yet I have no multi time.

If it makes any difference, my Commercial was done under Part 61 and took
four days (including checkride) straight after the Part 141 Instrument
course.

Also would you recommend a Part 61 or Part 141 Multi Engine Addon? I'm
taking a couple of weeks off work to get this completed full time.

Best wishes,

Richard Thomas
FAA CP-ASEL IA


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"David B. Cole" wrote in message
m...

But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
receive more benefit from following my original plan?


It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the single
and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross country
in
a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument at
the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the check
ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it
serves
as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All
you
have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
complex training.

In article , Roy Smith
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:
Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it serves
as a complex airplane.

Not all multi's are complex (nor are they all high-performance).

Aeronca Lancer, for instance.

"Richard Thomas" wrote in message Also would you recommend a Part 61 or
Part 141 Multi Engine Addon? I'm
taking a couple of weeks off work to get this completed full time.

A multi add-on can be done in a couple of days. Part 61 vs 141 won't make
much difference.

D.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the single
and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross country in
a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument at
the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the check
ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it serves
as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All you
have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
complex training.

How are you going to get the 10 hours of multi solo time required for
an initial commerical in a multi? Are there any FBOs that rent multi's
to non-rated pilots? You'll either need to do a private add on
checkride just to get the solo time or get signed off solo in the
multi but not find insurance. It seems easier to just get your private
commerical and then spend 10-15 hours in the twin for the add-on
checkride ( you don't need a private multi to take take the commerial
multi add-on checkride).

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the
single
and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross
country in
a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument
at
the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the
check
ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it
serves
as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All
you
have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
complex training.

How are you going to get the 10 hours of multi solo time required for
an initial commerical in a multi?

There is no such requirement. Perhaps you are thinking of 61.129 (b) which
says:

(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 (either of which may be credited
towards the flight time requirement in paragraph (b)(2) of this section), on
the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(2) of this part that includes at
least-

You do not need to re accomplish the cross countries.. you do need to be
prepared to complete the "multi" part of the PTS, engine cuts on takeoff,
Sim Engine Failure at altitude, etc. I had even practiced some Lazy8s and
Chandelles, but they were not requested on the check ride. It was the same
DE that had completed my SEL COMM a month prior.

My ME add-on with Instrument privileges went like this.
Oral, standard systems and difference questions, MinControlAirspeed etc.

Then the flight, preflight, initial take off with an engine cut as soon as
power was established, I cut the other engine and started to brake, Examiner
restored the engine (said it was mine) and brought the power back up for
take off, some engine cuts on take off will result in a full taxi back for a
second takeoff. We had pre-briefed this procedure and had a very long
runway.

On climbout and safe altitude, the DE again reduced power on one engine
(hiding the throttles) and I did the "dead foot dead engine" routine and
identified which I would shut down by placing my hand on the proper mixture
control and verbalized the checklist to shut it down. The "dead engine" was
then restored to full power.

On the hood, picked up radar vectors to a FULL ILS approach, missed approach
back to the radar pattern for a LOC approach with one engine simulated shut
down, (reduced to zero thrust by the DE). Engine restored for the go around,
but not really needed, it was a SenecaII Turbo.

Both good engines, under the hood to the practice area, headings and
altitudes provided by the DE. Some other IFR work, attitude recovery, etc,
then demo a full engine shut down are restart while maintaining heading and
altitude. As the engine warmed back up, the hood came off and MCA
demonstrations were completed.

Then a sim engine out VFR approach to the home airport to a touch and two
engine go, a VFR pattern with both engines for the accuracy landing. Full
Stop, mission complete.

Remember while all this is going on, the PIC (person taking the checkride)
is handling all radios and checklist as if SOLO.

BT

"Richard Thomas" wrote in message
...
Sorry to hi-jack this thread for a couple of questions...

I have my FAA Commercial and Instrument with Single Engine privilages,
this
was gained last year. At the end of June this year I am undergoing
training
for my FAA Multi Addon to my Commercial together with Multi Instrument
Privilages.

From what I understand all I need to do is a multi engine course and pass
a
checkride / oral during which I am required to demonstrate single engine
IFR
approaches. Is this all that is required? Or do I need to complete the
dual cross countries again, in a multi? Of course all of the Commercial
requirements were met in the Single and as yet I have no multi time.

If it makes any difference, my Commercial was done under Part 61 and took
four days (including checkride) straight after the Part 141 Instrument
course.

Also would you recommend a Part 61 or Part 141 Multi Engine Addon? I'm
taking a couple of weeks off work to get this completed full time.

Best wishes,

Richard Thomas
FAA CP-ASEL IA


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"David B. Cole" wrote in message
m...

But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
receive more benefit from following my original plan?


It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the
single
and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross
country
in
a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument
at
the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the
check
ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it
serves
as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All
you
have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
complex training.

David B. Cole wrote:

But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
receive more benefit from following my original plan?

It depends on what you mean with "make sense". But whatever route you'll
go, I strongly believe that it makes most sense to do acro first. This
will enhance your stick and rudder skills like nothing else. And it's
fun, too.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
David B. Cole wrote:

But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
receive more benefit from following my original plan?

It depends on what you mean with "make sense". But whatever route you'll
go, I strongly believe that it makes most sense to do acro first. This
will enhance your stick and rudder skills like nothing else.

You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will
grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training. I doubt there
is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve your
'stick and rudder skills.' In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether anyone
can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even are.
If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain altitude,
airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these skills.

I have not seen people who do aerobatics training show a lot of improvement
in such basic skills as ground reference maneuvers or commercial maneuvers.
What I have seen is that too many of them *think* they are better when in
fact they are not. Perhaps there is a lot of bad aerobatics training going
on out there and I am seeing the result of it. Whatever. For now I regard
aerobatics and tailwheel training as diversions that use time and money that
could be better spent in improving the basic skills you were supposed to be
learning in the first place.

"C J Campbell" wrote
You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will
grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training.

That's probably the least valuable aspect of aerobatic training. The
real value is that the the aerobatically trained pilot will generally
see the upset coming a mile away and never allow it to happen in the
first place. Aerobatics demands that you learn to fly entirely
without instruments, because in aerobatic attitudes none of them are
reliable. It demands that you learn to feel the airplane, instead of
just flying the numbers. The first time you feel the bite of the
stall at 100+ mph (in an airplane that stalls at 60) and with the nose
60 degrees below the horizon, you will understand.

I doubt there
is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve your
'stick and rudder skills.'

That's absolutely true - assuming they are solid to begin with. If
you are already able to land at your chosen point and at your chosen
speed/attitude, with the airplane aligned with the runway regardless
of wind, then a tailwheel endorsement will not do much for you. It is
possible to learn these things without flying a taildragger, but my
observations indicate that they are often not being learned. Look in
the POH for the airplane you fly, and find out the ground roll. If a
field twice that long seems awfully short to you, you can definitely
benefit from some tailwheel training.

In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether anyone
can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even are.

If you don't know, then you are absolutely not ready to be teaching
others to fly. In fact, I have often said that nobody should be
allowed to get a CFI ticket until he has demonstrated a loop, spin,
and roll solo in an appropriate aircraft.

If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain altitude,
airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these skills.

I don't think anyone seriously believes this is what stick and rudder
is about. When you can make a pretty landing in 15G25 direct cross,
that's stick and rudder skill. When you can land on target and at the
proper airspeed with both altimeter and ASI covered, that's stick and
rudder skill. And as an instructor, if a student puts you into an
inadvertent spin and you feel the need to grab the controls or yell
rather than calmly talking him through the recovery, you DON'T have
stick and rudder skills.

I have not seen people who do aerobatics training show a lot of improvement
in such basic skills as ground reference maneuvers or commercial maneuvers.

Commercial maneuvers are not basic skills. They are pointless
exercises that you do to prepare for a rating and never use again.
They are also not aerobatic.

Ground reference maneuvers are TRAINING maneuvers. They are also done
to prepare for a rating and never again, and are of no earthly use to
someone who can do aerobatics.

What I have seen is that too many of them *think* they are better when in
fact they are not.

Or maybe you simply lack the perception to see where the differences
are. I see that a lot among those who start instructing too early and
never really develop experience. That's why I recommend that any
potential instructor accumulate 500-1000 hours of his own time - not
dual given and not dual received and not trainign for ratings, but
actual real world flying experience. Those who have don't find it
difficult to see where the aerobatically trained pilot is better.

Perhaps there is a lot of bad aerobatics training going
on out there and I am seeing the result of it. Whatever. For now I regard
aerobatics and tailwheel training as diversions that use time and money that
could be better spent in improving the basic skills you were supposed to be
learning in the first place.

I think this is about the worst advice from a flight instructor that I
have ever heard.

Michael

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will
grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training. I doubt there
is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve your
'stick and rudder skills.' In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether anyone
can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even are.
If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain altitude,
airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these skills.


A good acro program will give you a much enhanced situation awareness
of what the airplane is doing without any reference to the instruments
or outside the cockpit.

Craig C.