Well, we all think "we know better" Leadsled. It's human nature. I think it, and quite obviously you think it too. Tricky bit is to get the regulator to state publically and enforce-ably what "better" is, so it's no longer a matter of opinion.
- No mixture cuts below 3000', and then only for demonstrating the feathering procedure;
- Never fail an engine "creatively" - e.g. fuel selectors;
- No feathered operations below 3000' or it's an emergency;
- No surprise failures ever, everything briefed beforehand even for tests, and failures done methodically;
- No multi-engine training at non-towered airfields;
- Touch-and-goes off a simulated asymmetric approach are undesirable but not forbidden (special risk management applies);
- Training for META is expensive and difficult and requires substantial ME experience;
- Training for examiner approvals also expensive and difficult;
(edit)
None of these are my ideas. They are all the UK way of doing things in the single-pilot multi-engine part of the training industry. I think it's uncontroversial to say that they are safer than Australia in this segment.
Some more:
- Creative use of a flight simulator is positively encouraged;
- Almost any "professional" simulator is acceptable for training credit in a flying school, approval relatively easy to get, to encourage their use;
- Mixture cuts in the circuit are discouraged although not forbidden;
- Feathered propellers at low level are forbidden, unless it's an emergency.
That's the NZCAA.
The FAA publishes those commonly circulated documents already mentioned by others. Whilst I don't have a strong opinion on mixture vs. throttle personally, the bulk of the respectable world says "no" to mixture at low level, so I don't do it any more.
There's quite a bit of stuff out there but it's not always easy to access, unfortunately.
Last edited by Oktas8; 27th May 2012 at 12:25.