CPL Test CAE/Oxford at MB

[Judd]

Understand the CPL test can be conducted in a PA44 Piper Seminole at this school. Word is that CASA have approved the forced landing without power sequence of the CPL test, by both engines being throttled back to idle and a dead stick simulated forced landing pattern is conducted. Is this true? Surely not.

[MaxFL360]

still seems like a good idea to me. FL are a grew training tool, they are a good get of being able to work under pressure and shows your ability to make a decision and make it work. Something a CPL candidate should be able to perform. Just because you have an extra engine doesn't make it any more safe, the extra engine is designed to take you to the crash site in some of those small twins!

[drpixie]

the extra engine is designed to take you to the crash site in some of those small twins!

And some of the bigger twins also - especially when anywhere near MTOW. :ooh:

[Oktas8]

If I was writing the syllabus for a CPL flight test (hohoho, what fun...), I'd think about it this way.

- Will a successful candidate probably spend a few years flying commercially, SE piston VFR, over terrain likely to make a forced landing a challenging exercise?

- At some prior point in their training, have all candidates demonstrated competence in the forced landing to a CPL standard?

If the answers are yes & no, respectively, I'd want to put a forced landing scenario into the test, regardless of aircraft type. For the sake of the future punters, you understand...

[manymak]

Why do your CPL test in a twin? Do it in a single. This is a smarter use of your money towards your training. Save the twin flying for your Instrument Rating.

[peterc005]

The logic is that if you are headed towards the airlines, multi-engine hours are worth a lot more than SE hours even if they cost a heap more.

Someone told me a while ago that OAA/CAE send all the C182s to England and that all post-PPL training was now done in Seminols.

[manymak]

peterc005 - The objective of pre CPL VFR training has nothing to do with multi engine handling and training. The benefit of added exposure to multi engine flying during this stage of training is negligible. All it will teach you is how to burn a larger hole in Mum and Dad's pocket.

Spending $300p/hr more to do this pre-CPL stage is useless and won't get you to an airline or regional any faster than the fella training in a C182 or Arrow.

Let's walk before we run.

[Cravenmorehead]

Judd, I did my commercial flight trading 30 odd years ago and on my test over Pinaroo airfield in South Australia at 6000 feet the examiner pulled the throttle back and said OK, "engine failure, land down there".
I stuffed it and failed. In hindsight (a tough tool) I deserved to be failed.
Point is I then got some instruction from a couple of RAAF fellas who showed me how they taught dead stick landings. Do a little research (Google is your friend) and try to find out how they do it.
If you end up up north in a C208 and it all goes quiet one day you may be thankful.
I know I was, 30 odd years later I still am.
Craven.

[peterc005]

@manymak - my understanding is that it is about more ME command time in the log book, rather than being about the cost or quality of training.

[Jack Ranga]

Wow, you can afford to pay for 500 Multi Engine Command?

[MaxFL360]

@manymak - my understanding is that it is about more ME command time in the log book, rather than being about the cost or quality of training.

Are these students actually getting command on a seminole? It is my understanding that the students will use 172 aircraft to build up the appropriate command time for the CPL test then use the seminole simply as a dual aircraft. I may be wrong, however if I am correct then they will have plenty of worthless dual time on an expensive aircraft when the money could be better spent on actual command time once they have completed their cpl if they choose to do so.

[LexAir]

To my knowledge, there is no double engine failure procedure in the POH for the Seminole - at least for the older Seminoles.
If the POH for the Seminole does not contain an emergency procedure for double engine failure then it is not reasonable to expect a CPL applicant to demonstrate a dead stick procedure and a fail assessment, based on such a procedure, could be challenged.

[training wheels]

The logic is that if you are headed towards the airlines, multi-engine hours are worth a lot more than SE hours even if they cost a heap more.


Not if it's logged as multi-engine dual. Multi-engine PIC in IFR operations yes, but highly unlikely any new CPL holder will get to see such a job in their first few hundred hours (well, not in Australia anyway).

[Oktas8]

If the POH for the Seminole does not contain an emergency procedure for double engine failure then ... a fail assessment, based on such a procedure, could be challenged.

A successful outcome is based on procedures and skills, applied with correct techniques.

An examiner will usually look for correct skills and techniques, as this is the primary purpose of attending VFR flying school. To put it another way, the difference between success and failure in VFR piloting is rarely down to procedure.

For specified items - e.g. emergencies - correct procedures will also be needed but the candidate usually can get away with justifiable variations. If a procedure isn't defined in a legally authoritative reference - POH, AFM - only skills, techniques and outcomes can be assessed.

Pass / fail judgement is based primarily on an evidence-based outcome. But by the time an outcome is certain, a competent examiner has already made up his/her mind based on quality of skill & technique.

Hence: "I'm sorry to say you have failed, as you could not have achieved your nominated field in the forced landing (outcome). When re-training, you might like to review trimming to achieve a stable speed (skill), which allows you to focus on flying accurately to a well-spaced low key position (technique)."

Providing CASA has specified failing to make the field as a valid fail point in the forced landing exercise, it would be hard to successfully challenge that assessment. Note that the manufacturer's procedures don't come into it.

[Humbly Reserved]

G'day folks

I've done a bit of instructing at various places in AUS, so I thought I could throw in my two cents on this. (no connection or personal knowledge of CAE's setup)

From my experience, CPL training has to be conducted in an aircraft with a constant speed, variable pitch propeller. Some schools only have 172's and warriors, so they use a cross hire multi-engine such as a duchy or seminole in the final stage of training so they can sit the flight test.

That said I have come across people who have done 50hours or so solo in the above multi aircraft and every person several years later when I have chatted to them say it gives them absolutely no advantage against the other fresh newbies on the market.

HR

[pilotchute]

Humbly,

Spot on. The only ones who were advantaged are the guys/girls who went on to instruct and didn't need to pay for the 50 hours multi for the META.

Doing your CPL test in a multi is a waste of time and money for most people. OAA a few years ago tried to get students to take the MECIR test in a King Air! They are just there to squeeze every cent out of you that they can.

[LexAir]

Page 42 of the Flight Examiner's Handbook (FEH) under "Simulating Emergencies" states, inter alia: "...examiners must not initiate simulated engine failures without first considering:

. POH
. Manufactures recommendations
. Company operational procedures
. Aircraft configuration and Flight profile/performance
. any other consideration; and
. Examiners must not introduce multiple abnormalities

Furthermore, Schedule 2 of the Manual of Standards (MOS) "Competency Standards" AME "Operate multi engine aeroplane", at pages 125 & 126, does not contain a requirement to demonstrate competency in handling a double engine failure. Additionally, Item 94, MOS Ref A6.3, of the Flight Test Report Form "Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane" clearly states: "Not applicable if flight test conducted in a multi engine aeroplane".

On a due and proper consideration of the above sections of the FEH, MOS and Test Form, any Flight Examiner that insists the applicant demonstrate a double engine failure - either on an initial issue multi engine class rating or CPL test, is operating outside the requirements of the MOS and thus leaving it open for the applicant to allege the test was not carried out in accordance with all relevant requirements.

In the brave new world of the "Flight Examiner" (as against the old ATO system), a failure to comply with the FEH, MOS, Flight Test Report Form or other relevant requirements leaves the examiner open to civil action for negligence or breach of contract.

[BlatantLiar]

Does the limitations section of the 44s POH state that closed throttle glide approaches are not to be conducted?

[LexAir]

Ah, the joys of sophistry!

[Oktas8]

Additionally, Item 94, MOS Ref A6.3, of the Flight Test Report Form "Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane" clearly states: "Not applicable if flight test conducted in a multi engine aeroplane".

That's the answer then. Anything else is irrelevant. (Providing that item 94 relates to a forced landing exercise!)