Why are multiple engines different?

They can do the pilot operations and get an endorsement and
solo, just no passengers.
61.31 (3) Have received training required by this part that
is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type
rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the
aircraft to be flown, and have received the required
endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide
the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.



"Greg B" wrote in message
...
| "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.
|
|

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

That distinction has been written in blood over the decades, as have
most of the regulations in aviation... they are the result of bad outcomes.

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.

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.

"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.

John Gaquin writes:

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.

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).

I've tried single failures on take-off in a twin in the sim; it's
difficult to wrestle the aircraft into level flight, but I was able to
land at a nearby airport (Boeing field after leaving KSEA, if you must
know), although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
in any case.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).

Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
engine.


........ although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
in any case.

A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Gaquin writes:

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.

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).


This is not necessarily true. A light twin such as the one I trained in
(piper seneca) at 4000 pounds the absolute ceiling is 20,000 msl. With
one engine out, the absolute ceiling becomes only 6,600. That is on a
standard day. If you understand density altitude then consider
mountainous terrain on a HOT day. I trained in Phoenix and on a hot day
with one engine shut down I would sometimes still be loosing 100 feet
per minuet at 5,000 feet MSL. That put me 3,500 feet above the ground
and still loosing altitude.

Then there's loosing an engine on climb out after takeoff. My charts
say at sea lv on standard day (15C, and 29.92) and max weight, you will
get about 180 FPM climb. At 4000 ft a zero climb rate. If there are
obstacles you may not clear them. This is part of your preflight
planning in a multi-engine airplane.

My instructor always said the working engine only helps you get to the
crash sight. I'm not sure I like that, but it stresses getting the
plane down at the nearest safe place and all the importance of the
decision making that goes along with it.

Mxsmanic wrote:

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly.

in other words, you don't have the opportunity to make a
wrong decision, the decision has already been made for you;
all you have to do now is to implement it correctly :-)

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Gaquin writes:

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.

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).

You have less time to impact if you don't identify the failed engine,
secure it, get to the right airspeed, etc...

Stop trying to extrapolate what you can "get away in in Microsnot
Flight Stimulator" to real aircraft.

Until you get your fat ass out from behind the computer and try
to fly any aircraft, you have no authority to speak with any
authority.