I have just hasd a thought. If i did my PPL on a Piper Seneca instead of a Warrior, would i have a PPL plus Multi Engine rating at the end?

This may sound like a stupid question but i just thought id ask.

Plus, if it did include Multi Engine which iom assuming it does, does this not work out cheaper in the long run instead of first gettin PPL on Warrior, then converting then getting Multi Engine?

Any help would be appreciated.

P.S. Is 215 pounds per hour about right for a Piper Seneca

Yes, you would have a PPL with Multi Engine Land class rating. You can't use this license to fly a single-engined aircraft.

I doubt very much if it would work out cheaper. I don't know the current rate for renting a twin, but your £215 sounds reasonable. Do the maths - multiply this by the number of hours it'll take to get a PPL (let's say 55). The compare that to £100/hr multiplied by 55, and add on £215 times whatever the minimum for a multi-engine conversion is, plus a bit (can't remember what the minimum is off the top of my head). I think you'll find that doing your PPL on a single engine works out cheaper by quite some way. And that's ignoring the fact that you'd probably take a lot longer to get your PPL in a Seneca (I'm not sure if the minimum time is higher or not...)

That's quite apart from the safety aspect of a low-hours pilot flying a multi-engine aircraft. Could you really handle an engine failure on take-off on your first solo???

Also, do you know of any schools which will teach a PPL on a multi-engined aircraft? I'm sure there must be one somewhere, but I doubt if there are many.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I think this idea is a non-starter.

FFF
---------------

FuFu,

might be talking complete bol*@x here, but I thought you had to have 100 hrs P1 on SEP before you can even start the twin rating?

Oh, I wish I had taken more notice when I did air law

You must have 70 hours P1 to apply for a MEP(Land) class rating, so I guess you'd do the minimum 10 hours P1 and 25 hours Pu/t, take the skills test, and hours build until you had the 70 hours P1 required to apply for a PPL(A)/MEP

Not cheap...

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thread killer.

Teesside Aero Club have a Seneca under their training aircraft list. At 215 pounds per hour. It has no mention of the fact that you cant train for your PPL on it.

I think that Evo is about right.

Pre JAR it used to be much easier to do the basic PPL on a MEP. About the only peolpe I knew who did, were those who already owned a MEP (or their faimily did).

Under JAR, does anyone know at what stage a student, learning on a MEP, would be allowed to go solo? Or would all his "solo" have to be done with a MEP rated instructor in the RHS, as a safety pilot?

I trained the conventional route - SEP - IMC - Night - MEP. From what I recall, I did not go "solo" on a MEP, until I had got my MEP rating back from the CAA.

Where is BEagle or Irv, when we need them?

Further thoughts - what about insurance?

Most of the schools that let MEPs out on self-fly hire, require something like a minimum of 100 to 200 hrs total, & 10 to 20 hrs MEP. The more powerful the MEP, then the higher these figures. I do not think that a student, with not even a SEP PPL, would be insured to fly solo on a MEP. So would he have to pay for the M/E instructor to sit in the RHS, until he had clocked up the whole 70 hours?

A quick shuffle of the beads on the abacus, & I reckon that an MEP, followed by the extra bit to get the SEP class rating added, would cost more than TWICE as, much as SEP followed by MEP.

Don't underestimate the increased speed of a twin, and the associated reduction in think time for each step, all to be tackled as a new task.

I think starting on a slower single would result in an overall faster progress to the licences and ratings, and a lower cost.

I have to agree with bluskis here.

Whether or not you are allowed to do your initial training in a twin, I strongly suggest that you don't.

Apart from the inevitable extra expense, you will be trying to master an aircraft which is far more advanced and probably less forgiving than most singles. In the early stages of flying, you don't really want the added burden of a retractable undercarriage, constant speed propellers, the niceties of assymetric thrust and the fact that most things are going to happen before your brain has even caught up to where you already are.

Basic trainers have been built for a purpose. Notwithstanding that, if you don't like the idea of a Tomahawk or a 152, go for a Warrior or a 172.

When you are proficient in flying a single, then move onto a twin - it's a whole new exciting challenge.

Notwithstanding the legality of opening a PPL with a MEP Class Rating, I would concur absolutely with the advice given above. You would have to undergo far more theoretical training, expensive flying training at 'commercial' rates - all for a licence which wouldn't allow you to fly a SEP aeroplane! FTOs require approval to conduct MEP training since the advent of JAR-FCL - it's nothing like as simple as it was in the days of the PPL with a Group 'B' rating.

It would be hazardous to attempt to run before you can walk. I would suggest that you obtain a PPL with SEP Class Rating first, build hours and experience, then learn the rudiments of RG and VP on a 'complex single', then do a MEP Class Rating. But only bother with a MEP Class Rating if you either intend to use it routinely or wish to become familiar with the aeroplane before moving on to CPL/IR. You don't have to do your IR on a MEP for a CPL/IR; however, many people do as a buidling block towards ATPL/IR.

Whilst in theory you can do a PPL on a twin, in practice you cannot because no insurance company will cover a student pilot flying solo!

Good point StrateandLevel (although I suppose one could train in one's own airplane and get liability-only insurance through a group plan, some of which do not care what the pilot's experience is).

I can't see any advantages to ab initio instruction in a multi-engine environment. No sensible pilot would dispute that this would add tremendously to a student's workload, and require a significantly longer period of instruction than would be necessary for a single engine PPL. The cost would almost certainly be more than a multi rating piggy-backed onto a single engine license in the usual manner.

When you start, you can't even keep ahead of a simple, 90mph aircraft. I can't imagine how terrifying and daunting it must be to learn ab initio in a twin. Probably why no flying training organisation, airline or air force appears to do it, or has ever done it.

QDM

If it is not possible to do a PPL(A) on a twin, why then is section 6 - Simulated Asymmetric Flight - part of the Application and Report Form for the PPL (A) Skill Test?



SD

take the advice of the peop's that were saying 'even if it is ok u still should do ppl in single' a good option after is: do your imc in the twin with out the twin rating! it'll get u used to the gh of the ac but you'll allready be on the ball as far as basics are concerned. We see to many people running b4 they can walk and making prats of them selves, expensive! top and botom is you need a good learning base, 150, 172 pa38 etc are great to get this base.

Just wanted to add my support to the calls for doing SEP first, then spend some time enjoying your SEP PPL (and building to 70hrs P1) before busting a gut to get MEP.

FWIW

What if I may ask is the logic behind the question?

Can't remember what the balls out speed of a Cessna 150 is, but I remember seeing a car pass me 1'500 feet below whilst I was chugging into a headwind many moons ago.

Blue line on a Seneca is what - 91 kts and once you've reached that 110 kts comes up pretty rapidly.

Go through the normal process and get used to the complexities and the speed increases bit by bit.

Fancy getting an engine fire in a Twin on your first solo...........

If the minimum for Multi Rating is 70 hours P1
then PPL training in a Multi aeroplane should be out of the question?

These are the current facts:
GID39

From that document:

PART 5 MULTI-ENGINE PISTON CLASS RATING (SINGLE-PILOT)
Introduction

To fly as pilot-in-command (PIC) of an aeroplane in the MEP class you must have an MEP Rating endorsed onto your licence.

3.Flying Experience Requirements for the Addition of an MEP rating

An applicant for a class rating for a single-pilot MEP aeroplane rating must produce evidence of having completed a minimum of 70 hours as pilot-in-command of aeroplanes.

Training Requirements
For rating issue you must:-

a) provide evidence of having completed a course of training at an authorised FTO or Type Rating Training Organisation (TRTO), following a syllabus recognised by the JAA, including the following:-

i) flying training consisting of not less than 2 hrs 30 min dual instruction under normal conditions of multi-engine operation, and not less than 3 hrs 30 min dual instruction in engine failure procedures and asymmetric flight techniques;

ii) a course of instruction consisting of a minimum of 7 hours theoretical knowledge instruction in multi-engine aeroplane operation;

b) pass a Licensing Skills Test (LST) conducted by an authorised Class Rating Examiner (CRE);

c) pass a theoretical knowledge written examination.

JAR-FCL1.261/1.262 refers.


There's no mention I can find of ab-initio MEP gubbins.

You certainly used to be able to do a PPL on MEP's pre JAR. I remember someone doing that when I did my 'B' rating many moons ago.

Got mine at 66 hrs TT.

IF it is possible AND the flying that you are going to do is solely ME I see no particular issue with the proposed route other than that it would probably mean learning it the hard way.

If the route SE -> ME is the one followed by all training schools it must make sense.

After all if you have the sort of readies/time that would allow you to contemplate to go the Multi route from thew word go, a few extra hours spent in getting the SE PPL first should not be a limiting factor.

Have fun

FD