What a/c classes constitute valid M/E time?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Age: 48
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a/c classes constitute valid M/E time?
quick question - to be eligible for say Jet* or VB or whatever with say a requirement of 500 hrs M/E time, exactly what sort of a/c would constitute M/E time? I'm assuming its not just anything with two engines like an islander or baron or Seneca or something - is there a min weight req?
This is more an FYI question.
Pharoah
This is more an FYI question.
Pharoah
Multi engine is multi engine. No matter the weight. I would assume the little mini partenavia (tecnam twin) would also qualify.
Not sure if it has changed recently, but the airlines don't normally count twin engine centre-line thrust aircraft C336/7 as multi-time. Had a funny feeling this notion had been repealed though.
And you leave Islanders alone, they're an awesome old bus. I'd take an Islander over any other piston twin around.
I don't understand... you know the answer?
j3
Not sure if it has changed recently, but the airlines don't normally count twin engine centre-line thrust aircraft C336/7 as multi-time. Had a funny feeling this notion had been repealed though.
And you leave Islanders alone, they're an awesome old bus. I'd take an Islander over any other piston twin around.
This is more an FYI question.
j3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: your house
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd take an Islander over any other piston twin around
I might be wrong, but I would have though that "turbo-charged time" would be more favourable than say a 310 or Baron. Any thoughts?
S
Quick thread hijack, if I may ....
Far easier to start flying multi-engined aeroplanes if they have jet engines and not piston. The reasons are simple - Easier to start, just push the button and away they go. Very reliable. Lots of power. Insensitive the throttle movement for cooling.
Why on earth you need to slug away for hundreds of hours on something that's typically hard to start, noisy, vibrates, needs very careful handling, etc, to 'progress' onto a turbine engine is beyond me.
Jets are the easiest engine to fly, full stop.
Far easier to start flying multi-engined aeroplanes if they have jet engines and not piston. The reasons are simple - Easier to start, just push the button and away they go. Very reliable. Lots of power. Insensitive the throttle movement for cooling.
Why on earth you need to slug away for hundreds of hours on something that's typically hard to start, noisy, vibrates, needs very careful handling, etc, to 'progress' onto a turbine engine is beyond me.
Jets are the easiest engine to fly, full stop.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston engines require the Pilot to have a knowledge of the engine, do it right and they will start every time. Vibration...doesn'nt every engine do that??..Management...isn't that what Pilot do???
Piston/Jet...who cares ...you love the one your flying!!!
Piston/Jet...who cares ...you love the one your flying!!!
Let me see 18 Wheeler?
CT7 Turboprop.
Check voltage Batteries(24)/GPU(29.5)
Batteries on
Check Bus-tie
MainBuses off
Emergency lights off
Autocoarsen off
Bleed valves auto
Power Levers Ground idle
Condition Levers Fuel off
External lights set
Ignitions off
Starter engage
ITT below 175 degrees/NG 17%
Condition Lever start
Ignition auto
Watch ITT rise, anything above 965 degrees and it's all over (cost of an average house in surburban Sydney!)
Ensure smooth continuous NG rise otherwise prepare for abort
Watch for starter cut-out at 55% NG
Note ITT peak
Associated generator reset then on. Ensure bus-tie.
The above does not include the procedure for hot/hung starts, or the career ramifications if you get it wrong
Check Generator/GPU voltage for second start.
Repeat for second engine
After engines start.
GPU disconnect
Generators on voltage check
Emergency lights armed
Recirc fans on
Ignitions guarded
Autocoursen on
Main buses on
Go to after start checklist
Condition levers to max. Check correct bottom governor operation.
Activate Ice protecion systems through the AC Generator
Probaby not as simple as it seems!
CT7 Turboprop.
Check voltage Batteries(24)/GPU(29.5)
Batteries on
Check Bus-tie
MainBuses off
Emergency lights off
Autocoarsen off
Bleed valves auto
Power Levers Ground idle
Condition Levers Fuel off
External lights set
Ignitions off
Starter engage
ITT below 175 degrees/NG 17%
Condition Lever start
Ignition auto
Watch ITT rise, anything above 965 degrees and it's all over (cost of an average house in surburban Sydney!)
Ensure smooth continuous NG rise otherwise prepare for abort
Watch for starter cut-out at 55% NG
Note ITT peak
Associated generator reset then on. Ensure bus-tie.
The above does not include the procedure for hot/hung starts, or the career ramifications if you get it wrong
Check Generator/GPU voltage for second start.
Repeat for second engine
After engines start.
GPU disconnect
Generators on voltage check
Emergency lights armed
Recirc fans on
Ignitions guarded
Autocoursen on
Main buses on
Go to after start checklist
Condition levers to max. Check correct bottom governor operation.
Activate Ice protecion systems through the AC Generator
Probaby not as simple as it seems!
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 13th Nov 2009 at 08:31.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viva la Cri cri.
Yes, I would claim these hours.
~FRQ CB
PS Also check out CAO 40.1.0 Appendix VI to see that you can actually log twin hours even with only a SE<5700 Kg endo.
Yes, I would claim these hours.
~FRQ CB
PS Also check out CAO 40.1.0 Appendix VI to see that you can actually log twin hours even with only a SE<5700 Kg endo.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You beat me to it CB,
saw one doing taxi trials at AF one day, asked him if he could trim the lawn on the way past. Launched off a Pajero I remember.
Twin time is twin time, most are pre 1980 anyhoo round Oz, as long as they hold together.
saw one doing taxi trials at AF one day, asked him if he could trim the lawn on the way past. Launched off a Pajero I remember.
Twin time is twin time, most are pre 1980 anyhoo round Oz, as long as they hold together.
Good choice in picking a complicated aeroplane to start, Krusty.
Let's look at a Metro 3.
Batteries on.
Check 22 volts.
Push the button marked 'start', then wait for the engine to start.
Hit the generator, wait for the amps to come down then turn it off again.
Hit the other start button, then at 10% turn the generator back on.
When it's finished starting, turn that generator on.
It's far more complicated to explain than do.
Oh, and they make it easy to shut the engines down, as they conveniently have two buttons marked STOP.
Let's look at a Metro 3.
Batteries on.
Check 22 volts.
Push the button marked 'start', then wait for the engine to start.
Hit the generator, wait for the amps to come down then turn it off again.
Hit the other start button, then at 10% turn the generator back on.
When it's finished starting, turn that generator on.
It's far more complicated to explain than do.
Oh, and they make it easy to shut the engines down, as they conveniently have two buttons marked STOP.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
IMHO it's far easier to operate a P&W PT6 (turboprop) than a P&W 985 (radial).
With starting the PT6, so long as you've got the battery capacity, revs and the spark she'll go - it's a monitoring job to make sure it all goes to plan. Want power - push the power lever forward, want to go down - pull the power lever aft. The only drawbacks (apart form the cost) are the time it takes to get useful thrust from commencing the start sequence (I fly floats) and the effect of cycles on engine life.
With the 985 they can be a bit of a b
to start especially when cold. They need the right amount of prime, and then gentle coaxing as they start coughing to encourage them to come to life. With the huge amounts of mass being thrown around throttle movement has to be gentle. The 985 needs to be throroughly warmed, and power reductions managed to avoid shock cooling. Then there's the mixture control and carby heat - things that don't exist on a turbine.
OK abusing a PT6 can damn expensive, but I'm with 18-wheeler on this one.
With starting the PT6, so long as you've got the battery capacity, revs and the spark she'll go - it's a monitoring job to make sure it all goes to plan. Want power - push the power lever forward, want to go down - pull the power lever aft. The only drawbacks (apart form the cost) are the time it takes to get useful thrust from commencing the start sequence (I fly floats) and the effect of cycles on engine life.
With the 985 they can be a bit of a b
to start especially when cold. They need the right amount of prime, and then gentle coaxing as they start coughing to encourage them to come to life. With the huge amounts of mass being thrown around throttle movement has to be gentle. The 985 needs to be throroughly warmed, and power reductions managed to avoid shock cooling. Then there's the mixture control and carby heat - things that don't exist on a turbine.OK abusing a PT6 can damn expensive, but I'm with 18-wheeler on this one.
I'm with 18-Wheeler on this one. Turbine engines are soooooo much easier to manage than a piston. Get the thing started, and so long as you don't overtorque it, overtemp it, or try and re-introduce the fuel after you just pulled the condition lever to shut it down, then what more can you do to it?
morno
morno
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever the work is!
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes down to it, it is a "Multi Engine" column rather than an "Asymmetric ME" column. I have heard many stories of companies not allowing their pilots to count 337 time in their ME columns due it is only an In Line thrust aircraft, but I also know a lot that count it as multi time (as it is and should be imho).
And I have never been asked how much asymmetric multi time I have and nor have I seen it in any applications in the past, so I dont believe it is a big deal. In the end you are still managing two engines on a 337 and the only difference is really during an engine failure unless you are useless and cant push the throttle levers forward whilst keeping the RPMs level (not counting turbos boosting at different rates on T/O, but thats easily overcome also).
And to the original Q, I havent heard of any MTOW limits as to what counts as "ME Command" although I have no idea about ultralight twins.
My 2cents
And I have never been asked how much asymmetric multi time I have and nor have I seen it in any applications in the past, so I dont believe it is a big deal. In the end you are still managing two engines on a 337 and the only difference is really during an engine failure unless you are useless and cant push the throttle levers forward whilst keeping the RPMs level (not counting turbos boosting at different rates on T/O, but thats easily overcome also).
And to the original Q, I havent heard of any MTOW limits as to what counts as "ME Command" although I have no idea about ultralight twins.
My 2cents
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always though this "337 time doesn't count" thing is a bit over the top. Pick any random person here with good (500+) multi-command time in the book - how much of that time (outside simulated conditions in training, of course) was flown with assymetric thrust? Generally zero to not much. My point being, I see no real difference in the "quality of experience" between a C337 and a "normal" twin of similar performance, such as a Duchess. You have to manage two engines, and when one goes bang after takeoff you've got a poorly performing aircraft that will kill you if not handled properly.
The only real difference is you shouldn't find yourself upside down in the 337. However, you've got a couple of other little things to worry about that can bring you unstuck under stress (such as identifying the failed engine from instruments alone, managing gear retraction so you don't fall out of the sky when the speedbrake gear doors pop out, etc.). In fact, I'm pretty confident in saying I'd rather have an EFATO in a Duchess than a C337 - if the rear engine fails, anyway.
Granted, I wouldn't feel like applying for an airline job with 95% of my twin time on the 337 - but I see no logical reason why it shouldn't be counted as "real" twin time - the placement of the engines on the airframe has no bearing on anything when they're all working fine.
The only real difference is you shouldn't find yourself upside down in the 337. However, you've got a couple of other little things to worry about that can bring you unstuck under stress (such as identifying the failed engine from instruments alone, managing gear retraction so you don't fall out of the sky when the speedbrake gear doors pop out, etc.). In fact, I'm pretty confident in saying I'd rather have an EFATO in a Duchess than a C337 - if the rear engine fails, anyway.
Granted, I wouldn't feel like applying for an airline job with 95% of my twin time on the 337 - but I see no logical reason why it shouldn't be counted as "real" twin time - the placement of the engines on the airframe has no bearing on anything when they're all working fine.