Why are multiple engines different?

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?

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

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

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?

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

Complexity. Flight dynamics are different and the systems are more complex.
You can get a AMEL first. But why?

Michelle P

In article ,
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?

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

Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for
the failure of an engine" you will be dead.

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)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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?

its not a hard add on. A few new procedures, and systems. The loss of
one engine on most twins drops performance by about 80%. Dealing with
the offset thrust of one good engine... Its mostly about learning
single engine operations.



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


I have seen people go this route. The bennifit is that when they have
their commercial with instrument privliges, they have 250 hours multi
time....however this nearly doubles the cost of your training.

I wouldnt reccomend it. Its hard enough to learn all the procedures in
a single non-complex airplane. Add prop adjustments, engine
syncronizing, and landing gear....its more than you need to deal with
while learning the basics. Not to mention you dont get to log most of
it as PIC anyway.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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?

There is more than one engine.

Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?

Yes

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

No

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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?

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

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

Bob Gardner wrote:

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.

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?

--Sylvain

Michelle P writes:

Complexity. Flight dynamics are different and the systems are more complex.
You can get a AMEL first. But why?

Mainly for the purpose of flying the same multiengine plane I fly in
simulation (a Baron 58). Of course, this aircraft costs almost two
million dollars, but if I can fantasize about having enough money for
a license, I can just as easily fantasize about having enough money to
buy a decent aircraft.

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. Given how frequently piston engines
fail, that seems like an important consideration.

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

Dale writes:

Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for
the failure of an engine" you will be dead.

But a lot of procedures can result in death if they are improperly
executed. It's not clear to me what the key distinction of multiple
engines might be that would justify a separate certificate.

Some of those procedures are pretty much guaranteed to result in death
for a single-engine plane, so anything one can do with multiple
engines would be an improvement.

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?

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

new_CFI writes:

its not a hard add on. A few new procedures, and systems. The loss of
one engine on most twins drops performance by about 80%. Dealing with
the offset thrust of one good engine... Its mostly about learning
single engine operations.

So there's nothing different to learn about basic flight? I was
wondering if there was something fundamentally different about flying
with more than one engine that made the distinction necessary.

I tried an engine failure on take-off in the sim. I died several
times before I managed to land safely. 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.

I have seen people go this route. The bennifit is that when they have
their commercial with instrument privliges, they have 250 hours multi
time....however this nearly doubles the cost of your training.

Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
may as well dream of multiengine training.

I wouldnt reccomend it. Its hard enough to learn all the procedures in
a single non-complex airplane. Add prop adjustments, engine
syncronizing, and landing gear....its more than you need to deal with
while learning the basics.

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??

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