Advice on Multi-Engine Rating

[GromDva]

Hi guys, I just want to pick your brain on what the best way for me get my initial multi-engine rating. I a relatively fresh PPL holder with around ~80 hours. Before I attempt any training for the Multi, I must first get my CSU/Retract. However, at the club I am currently training at, a Beech Travelair is online. What do you guys think will be the most cost effective way to go about getting both the Multi and CSU/Retract. Do you think it will be better to first get the CSU/Retract in a single and then move on to the multi, or complete all of the training at the same time in the Travelair. The dual rate in the single (Beech Sierra) is ~370, and the Travel air ~435. I spoke to the instructors at my club and they had mixed views. So what do you guys think would be the best way, and how many hours did it take you to do these ratings?
Also, does anyone know of any C206 or Cherokee 6's for hire in South-East Melbourne, Hiring them would be much cheaper than getting the multi rating, and give a similar capability.

[Mach E Avelli]

At those rates, financially it is a no brainer.
But, it will depend somewhat on just how sharp you are, and whether you can find an instructor who is experienced enough in multi training and not afraid of the aeroplane. Because with only 80 hours you will probably need a patient and confident instructor.
Even if it adds two or three hours to the usual minimum time to get a multi rating, it will be money better spent in the twin. There is little additional complexity, or speed, but you will need to be able fly more accurately than what would be required for the single. Like EXACTLY at blue line speed. On the upside, you will find a twin generally nicer to handle because the heavier they get the more that usually applies. Unless the design is a dog to start with, but Travelairs are sweet enough.

[Pontius]

Why would you spend extra money on flying a single with a wobbly prop and up/down wheels when you're going to be flying a twin that does the same thing? Don't let anyone try and 'amaze' you with the wonders of 'complex type'. It's not difficult and certainly doesn't warrant doing it before you do your multi-engine class. Read up on the theory beforehand, study the specifics of the Travelair before you climb into it and just crack on with it all at the same time.

[Tinstaafl]

What Pontius wrote. You will get the same exposure to CSU/retract in the twin as the single, all while going about the normal twin training stuff. It shouldn't add any extra training hours. All that will happen is that at the end of your twin training, you will also be endorsed for CSU & retract.

It's a bit like when I started flying a Kingair 90, having never flown pressurised aircraft before. It wasn't expected that I go & get a 'pressurisation' endorsement prior to training in the aeroplane.

The biggest factor in how many hours you'll need is your current experience level (read 'skill') vs the standard you will need to be able to achieve to safely fly a twin. Not having a CSU/retract before starting twin stuff is negligible.

[FoolCorsePich]

A lot of instructors to cover their asses will make you do 7 hours dual in a twin before giving you the endo so it makes sense to use that time to do the CSU and retract component.

[GromDva]

Thanks for the quick replies guys.

I am typically a fast learner (I'm still young, only 17. Can fly a plane anywhere but still can't drive without mum!), and I have had a fair bit of experience with the instructors who do the multis, and get along very with them. I'll most likely do it all in the upcoming school holidays, and keep the time between flights down, should make it a breeze.

[dhavillandpilot]

I shudder when I hear 'I'm a fast learner'

Having had three failures in a career of 6000 hours I would not like to be in an twin with you until you had a few hours twin under your belt

I did my initial twin on a Lockheed 12a which is a bloody nightmare radial twin

The guy who did the endorsement gave me one bit of advice 'this son of a bitch will bite of you lose an engine on take off' having heeded his words every take off I do now is standing at the end of the runway and telling myself an egone is going to fail between rotate and blue line. And guess what two failures were spot on

Don't listen to anyone who wants to give you a quick twin rating do the 7 hours. Get the instructor to take you to mangalore with a nice long runway and demonstrate failure at rotation. If you haven't changed underwear you will have learnt how to survive

I wish you well in your career

[GromDva]

Thanks for the advice. I'll see if we can get over to the Latrobe valley for a real demo. Does any of you have any recommendations on books that cover the theory?

[jas24zzk]

Cherokee 6, Yarra Valley Flight training has a 300hp variant online. recently upgraded with Garmin 430.

[Alloverit]

Cherokee 6, non retractable, single engine, but it does have a 430 ? Still wondering what that does towards a twin endorsement requiring two engines (2) and wheels that "come up" (retractable) ???

[GromDva]

Haha. It's the 6 seats I'm after, or the ability to carry 4 adults, fuel and luggage.

The plan was after getting the endo in the travel air and to move on to a P.68, even though I've never heard much good about the Partenavia.

I live down near Phillip Island, so a 2 and a half hour drive to the Yarra Valley isn't exactly ideal. I should have said south south east east Melbourne. Thanks though.

[GromDva]

How'd you guess I was from Tyabb :) ? I would do the whole rating in the P.68 but the Travel airs are a bit cheaper, and the wheels go up. I might split the time between to two. Now that you put it like that, I guess it sounds like a bit of an Italian stallion.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I don't remember the PN68, ever being called a 'Stallion', but then I never had the opportunity to fly one where a 'Stallion' was required.....

It was 'adequate'....as are most 'light twins'....

Cheers :}

[Capt Fathom]

Fast learner all right! Already has pprune down pat! And at just 17, has picked up some useful aviation lingo!
Looking forward to the next instalment. :E

[Judd]

Get the instructor to take you to mangalore with a nice long runway and demonstrate failure at rotation.

In my day, that would be called practicing bleeding. Like mixture cuts on take off. Potentially dangerous and unnecessary. If I recall correctly, it was at Mangalore that TAA or maybe it was Ansett, that pranged the first Viscount and killed someone. I think a check pilot pulled an engine at rotation and control was lost. Pulling an engine at rotation is a recipe for disaster. Not all instructors are competent. Leave that stuff to simulators.

[GromDva]

I've been silently studying the forums for a month or two now. A bit of pre-post briefing.
I gotta say, I do love the euphemisms for CSU's and retractable floating around.

[drpixie]

dhavillandpilot, sound advice ... it's all easy until it's not easy.

Please indulge my curiosity - those failures in the L12a (might be a bitch but she is a beautiful bitch), did you reject the takeoffs, or continue? And were they spectacular and obvious failures, or partial loss of power?

[Pinky the pilot]

From my point of view re a ME rating; You cannot go past a Seneca 1.:eek::eek:

Makes sign to ward off evil eye, throws salt over shoulder, takes out matchstick and breaks it etc etc.:ooh:

If, after being thoroughly put through the wringer on one of those aircraft (as indeed I was by a certain TK and in a generally smoke filled cockpit an' all:ugh:, and God bless him for what he did for me:ok:) you may rest assured that you will be able to fly any twin, in due course upon obtaining the necessary experience!

And I'm sure any Seneca 1 drivers, both current and former out there would agree.:}

[27/09]

Nothing wrong with getting a bit of time in a CSU single retract.

Too often today the first CSU retract that some pilots fly is a twin, which flies a third as fast again as anything they've ever flown.

A twin is a pretty big step up from what they've been flying, getting used to setting MP and RPM including getting the props in sync, raising and lowering the gear while climbing faster and having a significant increase in speed isn't necessarily a simple exercise.

Getting experience in a CSU, retract single prior to flying a twin has some value IMO.

[jas24zzk]

I tend to agree with 27/09.

Sure people have done csu/retract endo's in twins, but if you are trying to chase it in minimum time, then all you are going to do is take away training time that could be better spent on learning the traps of a light single.

Do your CSU retract in a single..if you did your training on warriors, then you cannot go past an arrow for this. It was designed as a natural step up, so you will spend 95% of your flight time learning the systems, not 40 % learning the systems and 60% learning the aeroplane.
Get the CSU/Retract down pat in the cheaper single, then go an complicate it with an extra engine.
I did my CSU/Retract in an Arrow IV whilst holding a GFPT, and then began my twin rating with less than 10 hours private flying after my PPL test.

Travel-Air Versus Partenavia.
Drawing on my very first Central Oz trip here, I was flying a travel-air with light loading, in company of 2 Partenavia's.
The Part might have a big max take-off weight (1990kg IIRC) but its achillies heel is its maximum landing weight, which is 100 kg less...it means a long time burning fuel if you have a problem shortly after takeoff. ( yes i know, most emergencies we say the insurer owns it and land it....but a suddenly ill passenger?)
The travel-air can land at MTOW. I found on this 2 week trip...flying every day (oh how bad can that be), the 2 part's were load shedding to me. On no single day did I i depart below max weight

The Q of doing your initial multi in a travel-air vs a partenavia, is mute unless you have a plan for its immediate use and with proper consultation of the performance charts

Cheers
Jas

[jas24zzk]

Alloverit said...
Cherokee 6, non retractable, single engine, but it does have a 430 ? Still wondering what that does towards a twin endorsement requiring two engines (2) and wheels that "come up" (retractable) ???

No mate, has a 540.

Original poster also asked the question of a 206 or Cherokee 6 available for hire.

And we all know you cannot go past those 2 types for lifting serious loads.
--------------

And GromDva, sometimes you need to travel and reposition aeroplanes to get the one you want for the mission.

The one at YVFT, has JUST come out of a major refurbishment.....it's known around ML as the ugliest one going, but that is no longer...Huge amount of work recently completed, including full paint and avionics upgrade with Garmin 340 and 430....its a good bus. You will lift more with this than most light twins.

Cheers
Jas

[iPahlot]

Why not do a bit of a compromise.

1. Do initial multi and CSU in the Partybus. It's asymmetrics are a little more benign than the TravelAir.

2. Do a type check/famil (or whatever they're called now...) and retract in the TravelAir once you're comfortable with the PartyBus.

Are you planning on doing your CPL? If so, doing on the TA would be beneficial if you can afford it.

Now remember the wheels going up and down and the CSU are one thing, but these twins also have fuel systems that aren't just "Both" like the little cessnas you've flown til now (though not overly complicated, until it comes to x-feeding) and they'll take you somewhere a good number of knots faster as well, so your learning will not just be limited to an extra donk, two extra leavers and making your wheels go up and down.

Planning a descent and also planning on bringing the power back nice and early will also be part of the stuff you should be getting taught, and with your very very limited experience that'll be a fairly steep initial learning curve on top of the other things.

Also if you want a true load carrier (neither the partybus nor the TA are) you can't go past the "Six". Bob Boyd, the owner of PXG and CFI will train you well and he'll actually teach you a thing or two about flying the thing in a more commercial manner. :ok:

[GromDva]

Now the other side of the argument is coming out!

I've a fair few hours in the Cherokee's so I've got grips on fuel selection, which doesn't worry me to much, as i think both the Travelair and Partenvania have got either mains or reserves for both engines, so its only the same thing doubled.
Unfortunately the flight school only uses a Beech Sierra for CSU/Retract, so I will be learning a new plane regardless.
I am working towards a CPL, so any hours are good hours, so I am not too worried about wasting money, its just a case of getting the most bang for my buck.
Currently I'm thinking of starting in the Parten, then moving to the Travelair, once I've got CSU and twin down pat. I'm still open to suggestions.
I would love to head out to Coldstream for the 6, but Mum get a bit irritated driving a hour to tyabb, and then she has to wait around. It just wouldn't work.
Thanks for the info though.

[Pontius]

A twin is a pretty big step up from what they've been flying, getting used to setting MP and RPM including getting the props in sync, raising and lowering the gear while climbing faster and having a significant increase in speed isn't necessarily a simple exercise.

Give me a break! He wants to get a piston multi-engine rating, with retractable gear and a CS prop, not single-handedly build, crew and launch an Apollo mission. It is NOT difficult, does not require a degree in rocket science and can very easily all be done in one fell swoop. If anyone finds the speed increase from 100kts to 140kts a huge deal then maybe they should stick to the merry-go-round at the next fair and give up aviating.

[Stationair8]

Went from a C172 to a twin Comanche with 100 hours total time.

By the time I did the CPL flight test I had two single engine types(C152/172) and two twins PA-30 and B76.

The CFI used the five hours initial twin to count towards the 10 hours general flying for the CPL.

[Mach E Avelli]

Pontius hear, hear!
During World War 2 pilots headed to bombers came off basic single engine trainers at about 75 hours and went straight to advanced twin trainers, then after another 50 hours they went to the machines they would fly in combat. None of this pissing about in toy retractable singles. The old advanced twin trainers were beasts, compared with our typical pussy light weight tricycle gear post war twins which are mostly just singles tweaked a bit to take a spare engine anyway.

The OP should probably budget 10 hours to do a direct transition to a retractable twin, and do it properly. Don't muck about with half measures like Partenavias. If you are on top of the Travelair after 8 hours, spend the loose change on an hour in a Baron 58 to get a feel for more weight and more speed.

[MadMadMike]

The Part might have a big max take-off weight (1990kg IIRC) but its achillies heel is its maximum landing weight, which is 100 kg less...it means a long time burning fuel if you have a problem shortly after takeoff. ( yes i know, most emergencies we say the insurer owns it and land it....but a suddenly ill passenger?)

If an aircraft can take off it can land with no drama whatsoever. An overweight landing inspection of something in this category is usually nothing more than a 5 minute walk around by an engineer and a quick sign off. An insurance company won't get involved at all because there is virtually no risk to the aircraft. Don't overthink these things, thats when mistakes happen.

[NOTAM]

GromDva,

If the aim is to keep cost down I would do your CSU/Retrac in a single first and then worry about twins later. If you are going CPL I would wait until you have about 500 hours before jumping in a twin. This is what I did and it worked well. I have taught ME in the past and found that the students with a few hundred hours under their belt would get through significantly faster than fresh PPL or CPL students regardless of age. I have been lucky enough to fly aircraft from light twins to Airbus wide body and I can tell you that piston twins can be very dangerous especially losing an engine on takeoff. Get your CSU/retrac on a single, get some experience and then jump in a twin would be my advice. All the best :ok:

[jas24zzk]

If an aircraft can take off it can land with no drama whatsoever. An overweight landing inspection of something in this category is usually nothing more than a 5 minute walk around by an engineer and a quick sign off. An insurance company won't get involved at all because there is virtually no risk to the aircraft. Don't overthink these things, thats when mistakes happen.

Let me get my head around this.

So we load to the max, get airborne and a passenger is suddenly ill, and a turn back is decided upon. We don't bother worrying about the max landing weight because its only a 5 minute walk around by an engineer....won't cost much :D provided we didn't break anything :ugh:

We could have been prudent and only loaded to max landing weight and simply been able return to the field, dealt with the problem and kept on moving.


Sure there are times when the length of leg will force you to goto MTOW. You are then faced with the decision of how you deal with the problem....you're options are lil more limited....if the problem is an engine failure, then sure, the insurer owns it get it on the ground, because you are going no further anyway.

In an aeroplane with no dump capability, loading above max landing weight when unneccesary has ants on it....if you can load shed to an accompanying aeroplane, then go for it.

[MadMadMike]

Depends on the situation doesn't it. Passenger feels a little green in light aircraft and decides they want to land asap. Sure asap is once I am down to landing weight.

Passenger starts exhibiting signs of cardiac arrest, I am putting the plane on the ground and prioritising their health absolutely.

Let me know how the conversation goes with your CP when you tell him you only take MLW in case of a possible air return :hmm:

[Square Bear]

Let me get my head around this.

So we load to the max, get airborne and a passenger is suddenly ill, and a turn back is decided upon. We don't bother worrying about the max landing weight because its only a 5 minute walk around by an engineer....won't cost much provided we didn't break anything

Do you think QF/VA etc operating MEL/PER take stuff like that into consideration.? If they did they would run out of fuel.

To the OP, train to your limit...and I have to say, you seem to have a pretty good grab on it all.

Guys like you end up making the grade!!

[jas24zzk]

Ok, so passenger feels a lil green, but because you are above MLW, you opt to continue, or stay airborne until you are below MLW.

In a Partenavia, thats 100kg's to burn off at 80 litres per hour...so roughly, you are going to circle for 2 hours, or continue to your destination, with a sick passenger...who will in turn make other passengers sick, if not yourself.

You have just put yourself in a lose lose situation. You continue, the Pax will write complaint letters..and the CP will be the least of your worries.....you land overweight when it could have been avoided, and the CP will have no say on your future in the company...unless he owns it but the resultant would be the same.

Remember, my original post included load shedding....load shedding shows your are thinking about the limitations of the aircraft you are flying, and attempting to get yourself out of that grey zone. MLW is a serious operational limitation. It strikes me that you are somewhat blase about it, when you are talking about a limitation that has the ability to total loss an airframe.

Sure your Pax has a heart attack..thats an emergency, toss it on the ground and make an insurance claim, but a green Pax.


My point still stands..

Operating an aeroplane with no dump facility above MLW if avoidable is a silly idea.

[jas24zzk]

Take a more in depth look at my posts..

QF/VA or any other carrier of that size utilise aircraft capable of dumping fuel.

They also have cabin crew with first aid qualifications.


We are talking light twins here, where the pilot is doing it all.

[MadMadMike]

Load shedding, In a light twin? Are you seriously suggesting opening a door mid air and tossing 100kg of stuff out is a sensible idea!? :ugh: CASA would eat you for breakfast for that far more than landing slightly overweight.

On something like a Partenavia landing weight is a specified as such not due to catastrophic failure from a one off incident like you seem to believe but due to the additional fatigue that would be caused on the airframe if it were landed at that weight everyday. The plane isn't going to explode due to 100kg once.

I have landed knowingly overweight twice in my career. Once in a light twin, inspection done and back in the air 30 minutes later. Once in a multi crew turboprop. Inspection takes a little longer but still not a big deal according to engineers.

Both times I was commended by the CP for a sensible decision making process and safest possible outcome. When was the last time you answered to a CP other than your wife?

[Dashtrash]

Operating an aeroplane with no dump facility above MLW if avoidable is a silly idea.

Maybe send your thoughts to the folks at Airbus. The A320/A321 and A330s that I have operated have no dump facility. Just an overweight landing checklist that mostly ensures missed approach performance.

Back to the problem at hand.

If you're going to be flying the Part-aviator with family/friends, then you should get as much experience in that aircraft. Once you've done the initial multi in that, you'll be pretty comfortable in it and confident to operate it safely.

If you know the instructors on the PN68, can you ask to back-seat any of their other flights (no abnormals permitted) just so you can get some exposure.

V1 cuts are NOT for light twins. Do it in a simulator or creative instructors can demonstrate the performance (or lack thereof) at a safe altitude. Engine out work is dangerous if not handled in a professional manner.

Take care

DT