If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Bob Gardner writes:
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. Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it more dangerous? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Sylvain writes:
is this the reason why the night flying requirement for an initial commercial in a multi- does not have to be solo? I mean, did the FAA tailor the rules to fit the insurance requirements? What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may factor into this also) So someone will do it if you put the money down? Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft? I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message . Anyway, I dislike P-factor and torque issues, and I figure they'd be less prominent on a multiengine aircraft (especially with counterrotating powerplants, but apparently there aren't many aircraft like that). And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out of luck in a single-engine plane. And the above, my friend, shows precisely why separate training and certification are required. Any airplane, from Cessna to Boeing, is fairly easy to fly when everything goes right. Teaching the procedures involved in an engine failure is fairly straightforward; and, like most straightforward procedures, they are not difficult to learn with practice. But the rub comes afterward. When you have more than one engine, that means you still have at least one remaining after a failure, and that means you have decisions to make. The judgement associated with these decisions is what is important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message .....I wouldn't want to have to deal with that in real life. Still, I'd have a better chance than I would with an engine failure in a single-engine plane. Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least not nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is the decision making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in a twin. In a single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made for you as soon as the engine fails. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Don't you adjust props and deal with landing gear in single-engine aircraft, too? Or do I need a multiengine certification just to have retractable gear?? depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed landing gear, fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for initial training (there is enough already to worry about before adding extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch props you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or certificate or rating; it consists in additional training from an instructor (see 14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the logbook, it's a one time thing. There are similar endorsements required to fly 'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp), tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations. Now a multi- can be complex or not (rare but it exists), high performance or not (note that it is not the sum of the power of the engines that count, whether or not it has any engine with more than 200hp -- i.e., you could have an aicraft with ten 200hp engines which would still not qualify as 'high performance' :-) ), tailwheel or not, pressurised or not, so do single engines. It is orthogonal if you like. --Sylvain |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic wrote:
What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two? The FAA in its infinite wisdom, has it covered; airplane that require more than one pilot tend not to be used as primary trainers though. Question: is there any aircraft out there that require more than one pilot but does not require a type certificate? --Sylvain |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it more dangerous? yes. For a number of reasons already mentioned by others, i.e., there are a lot more things that can get wrong, and the decision process is more complex (stats I have seen suggest that you are more likely to die if you loose an engine in a twin than if you loose one in a single); more over, multi- aircraft tend to be bigger, faster, etc. Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you can rent on your own. --Sylvain |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Sylvain wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it more dangerous? yes. For a number of reasons already mentioned by others, i.e., there are a lot more things that can get wrong, and the decision process is more complex (stats I have seen suggest that you are more likely to die if you loose an engine in a twin than if you loose one in a single); more over, multi- aircraft tend to be bigger, faster, etc. Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you can rent on your own. Really? I've never had a problem. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Home Built Aircraft - Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki | OtisWinslow | Home Built | 1 | October 12th 05 02:55 PM |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
U.S. Air Force Moves Ahead With Studies On Air-Breathing Engines | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 03:31 AM |