Merged: Airtex/Skymaster AOC suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The devil is in the details
The Airtex – Sky Master scrum, better than anything else serves to highlight the inherent flaws in the regulatory system as it stands. The Airtex situation is very different to the Sky Master issue.
Airtex was taking serious steps, under a strict non owner involvement policy towards achieving a very good operational culture and standards. This action is a classic 'much ado about nothing'. (You need a fine sense of the ridiculous).
Sky Master is horse of an entirely different color. It is said, that had the pilots any options other than loose a job or get prosecuted, there may well have been a different picture, other than that of a sad, sub standard, potentially lethal operational culture. I have heard (horses mouth) that two CASA officers had written information related to "trouble at the mill'', they delayed and prevaricated, then rolled over. (Marked - to be dealt with internally?).
Now, no one is going to tell CASA anything. This is a great shame. Had the culture of fear been a culture of respect then, over a coffee information could be exchanged, pointers given and the 'Authority' could, with some precision have effected safety based changes which may have prevented some recent events. Had there been an 'empathetic' authority, perhaps things would have worked out differently.
But sadly as it stands, safety based outcomes are not nearly as much fun as lawyers at 20 paces.
I hope the grown ups at CASA see that perhaps the cases need to be treated separately. Neither, in different ways make them look good. In one, they perhaps embarrass themselves; in the other, they may well be seen as part of the problem.
Airtex was taking serious steps, under a strict non owner involvement policy towards achieving a very good operational culture and standards. This action is a classic 'much ado about nothing'. (You need a fine sense of the ridiculous).
Sky Master is horse of an entirely different color. It is said, that had the pilots any options other than loose a job or get prosecuted, there may well have been a different picture, other than that of a sad, sub standard, potentially lethal operational culture. I have heard (horses mouth) that two CASA officers had written information related to "trouble at the mill'', they delayed and prevaricated, then rolled over. (Marked - to be dealt with internally?).
Now, no one is going to tell CASA anything. This is a great shame. Had the culture of fear been a culture of respect then, over a coffee information could be exchanged, pointers given and the 'Authority' could, with some precision have effected safety based changes which may have prevented some recent events. Had there been an 'empathetic' authority, perhaps things would have worked out differently.
But sadly as it stands, safety based outcomes are not nearly as much fun as lawyers at 20 paces.
I hope the grown ups at CASA see that perhaps the cases need to be treated separately. Neither, in different ways make them look good. In one, they perhaps embarrass themselves; in the other, they may well be seen as part of the problem.
Last edited by Rose_Thorns; 27th Jul 2010 at 22:23. Reason: edirorial
Lester,
As Rosie says, two different organization with one shareholder, re-read my original post on this subject.
In my opinion, what has changed at YSBK is the CASA management. To say changes have caused " much fluttering in the dovecots" would be the understatement of the week.
Quite apart from Avtex and Skymaster, all of a sudden, most of the local ATOs, people of long standing high reputation, are in trouble --- as a result of some quite bizarre "definitions" and "interpretations" of "the rules" by certain FOIs.
Not limited to "informal" "directions to ATOs" that (asymmetric) handling of a "V1" cut ( no such thing on a FAR 23 aeroplane) "engine failure on takeoff" must be demonstrated by pulling the mixture ---- no wuzzy "zero thrust". This is at the heart of the problems of the ATOs, who, perhaps not surprisingly, have shown no enthusiasm for such bureaucratically directed "techniques".
Other AOCs (and there aren't all that many active left at YSBK) are threatened ---- let's "get tough", close 'em all down, ergo a perfect safety record. Some of the CASA demands of other operators would be funnily farcical, if it wasn't so serious.
It's not just the "industry" record that should be subject to close scrutiny here.
Undoubtedly, the ensuing inevitable court proceedings will do just that !!
Tootle pip!!
As Rosie says, two different organization with one shareholder, re-read my original post on this subject.
In my opinion, what has changed at YSBK is the CASA management. To say changes have caused " much fluttering in the dovecots" would be the understatement of the week.
Quite apart from Avtex and Skymaster, all of a sudden, most of the local ATOs, people of long standing high reputation, are in trouble --- as a result of some quite bizarre "definitions" and "interpretations" of "the rules" by certain FOIs.
Not limited to "informal" "directions to ATOs" that (asymmetric) handling of a "V1" cut ( no such thing on a FAR 23 aeroplane) "engine failure on takeoff" must be demonstrated by pulling the mixture ---- no wuzzy "zero thrust". This is at the heart of the problems of the ATOs, who, perhaps not surprisingly, have shown no enthusiasm for such bureaucratically directed "techniques".
Other AOCs (and there aren't all that many active left at YSBK) are threatened ---- let's "get tough", close 'em all down, ergo a perfect safety record. Some of the CASA demands of other operators would be funnily farcical, if it wasn't so serious.
It's not just the "industry" record that should be subject to close scrutiny here.
Undoubtedly, the ensuing inevitable court proceedings will do just that !!
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th Jul 2010 at 08:16.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thorn bird
Oboy!!!...girls and boys its on again!!
Take one screaming skull..returned from an oriental debacle, heavily spiced with a deflated ego.
Stir in worthless and Dubious " Brown Shirt Industry rejects.
Kneed the Skulls ego in front of a Senate committee, until he loses his rag and reincarnates as "Adolf".Mix in an area manager desperate for promotion at any cost, and lets go bake a cake!!...I can hear the ovens firing up as we speak. Cake will be tasty for some...sour for others.
At the end of the day who will lose??...The industry!!!...note the CASA spin doctors and hollow men that the industries hard earned dollars pay for have been hard at work. All this does incredible damage to our industry. Why after twenty years cannot our regulator produce a set of regulations that are up to date, understandable ( Without the accumen of being a high court judge)..that are not open to many interpretations. Until that happens this sort of Cr...p will go on happening, because one mans interpretation is no necessarily the same as someone else....Why do all the CASR's Cao"s etc have to end up in front of a high court Judge with no aviation background for interpretation. Any one read CAO 40 lately???
Who ever wrote that should get an award for Gobbledy Gook!! Worthless and Dubious FOI's can force their "Opinions" because the reg's are so open to interpretation...the sad thing is people will die and those industry rejects will be blameless because CASA is the font of all knowledge, defy them at your peril, as perhaps we are witnessing in this sorry saga.
Do as your told children!!!even if you know its unsafe...Civil Aviation SAFETY....Authority????....Bul....SH...T
Take one screaming skull..returned from an oriental debacle, heavily spiced with a deflated ego.
Stir in worthless and Dubious " Brown Shirt Industry rejects.
Kneed the Skulls ego in front of a Senate committee, until he loses his rag and reincarnates as "Adolf".Mix in an area manager desperate for promotion at any cost, and lets go bake a cake!!...I can hear the ovens firing up as we speak. Cake will be tasty for some...sour for others.
At the end of the day who will lose??...The industry!!!...note the CASA spin doctors and hollow men that the industries hard earned dollars pay for have been hard at work. All this does incredible damage to our industry. Why after twenty years cannot our regulator produce a set of regulations that are up to date, understandable ( Without the accumen of being a high court judge)..that are not open to many interpretations. Until that happens this sort of Cr...p will go on happening, because one mans interpretation is no necessarily the same as someone else....Why do all the CASR's Cao"s etc have to end up in front of a high court Judge with no aviation background for interpretation. Any one read CAO 40 lately???
Who ever wrote that should get an award for Gobbledy Gook!! Worthless and Dubious FOI's can force their "Opinions" because the reg's are so open to interpretation...the sad thing is people will die and those industry rejects will be blameless because CASA is the font of all knowledge, defy them at your peril, as perhaps we are witnessing in this sorry saga.
Do as your told children!!!even if you know its unsafe...Civil Aviation SAFETY....Authority????....Bul....SH...T
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as an ex Commonwealth public servant Sunfish is on the money. You are probably better off approaching the Shadow Minister or Today Tonight...but make sure it's saleable, includes working families and has good soundbites, otherwise No-one Cares (until there's a distressing number of bodies, a la Transair). Such is modern government 
.
.
Leadsled:
If that is actually correct, then I'm simply flabbergasted. I only fly singles, but were someone to do that to me, the mixture control would be immediately returned to full rich and the test terminated.
I've had the throttle retarded to idle at fifty feet on takeoff, together with "Engine failure, what are you going to do now?" and even that focuses your attention.
Not limited to "directions to ATOs" that (asymmetric) handling of a "V1" cut ( no such thing on a FAR 23 aeroplane) "engine failure on takeoff" must be demonstrated by pulling the mixture ---- no wuzzy "zero thrust". This is at the heart of the problems of the ATOs, who, perhaps not surprisingly, have shown no enthusiasm for such bureaucratically directed "techniques".
I've had the throttle retarded to idle at fifty feet on takeoff, together with "Engine failure, what are you going to do now?" and even that focuses your attention.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can any one confirm. 4 senior ATO MIA.
In connection with the last post?. (No, not the tune. Sit down Joyce).
Heard on the grapevine that 4 BK based senior ATO are all in trouble of some sort; mostly based on one man's interpretations of the CAO as writ. The same rumour describes the FOI involved as being ex Darwin based, (ran out of town on a rail), then rejected by Melbourne and finally being off loaded at BK. Anyone care (dare) to clear this up. It would be a great thing to know more about the people who can, almost at a whim, have such a negative overall affect on the safety of this industry.
I sincerely hope this is not so. There is little enough sense and experience available to the 'kids' on their way to greener pastures than GA. We need the guys with multiple decades and thousands of test hours experience. (Say 4 ATO with 30 years each thats 120 years collective experience gone in a heartbeat).
The great PA 31 type rating saga continues to amuse and delight, (unless your the poor sod paying for it all). As one of the guys involved mentioned. “If I had have done an endorsement as this guy has accepted them done, I would have lost my socks on the way to the AAT”.
Perhaps the CASA grown ups would like to publish a statement about this episode, before it starts to appear in cartoon form in the national press at election time. LOL.
Heard on the grapevine that 4 BK based senior ATO are all in trouble of some sort; mostly based on one man's interpretations of the CAO as writ. The same rumour describes the FOI involved as being ex Darwin based, (ran out of town on a rail), then rejected by Melbourne and finally being off loaded at BK. Anyone care (dare) to clear this up. It would be a great thing to know more about the people who can, almost at a whim, have such a negative overall affect on the safety of this industry.
I sincerely hope this is not so. There is little enough sense and experience available to the 'kids' on their way to greener pastures than GA. We need the guys with multiple decades and thousands of test hours experience. (Say 4 ATO with 30 years each thats 120 years collective experience gone in a heartbeat).
The great PA 31 type rating saga continues to amuse and delight, (unless your the poor sod paying for it all). As one of the guys involved mentioned. “If I had have done an endorsement as this guy has accepted them done, I would have lost my socks on the way to the AAT”.
Perhaps the CASA grown ups would like to publish a statement about this episode, before it starts to appear in cartoon form in the national press at election time. LOL.
Last edited by Rose_Thorns; 29th Jul 2010 at 01:45. Reason: Typos
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Timbuktoo
Age: 40
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know who has been operating Airtex medical / other flights in their absence? 
I would guess there are few other operators available with as many resources...
I would guess there are few other operators available with as many resources...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratwood there is a lot of truth in this
Heard on the grapevine that 4 BK based senior ATO are all in trouble of some sort; mostly based on one man's interpretations of the CAO as writ.
The screaming skull will rush to the defence of the bureacrats, but it is an untenable position.
Heard on the grapevine that 4 BK based senior ATO are all in trouble of some sort; mostly based on one man's interpretations of the CAO as writ.
The screaming skull will rush to the defence of the bureacrats, but it is an untenable position.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Ppruners
Careful, careful, careful - some of the posts might, to a rumouristic way of thinking, resemble very closely questions from dubious and worthless sources. And maybe CASA'ites as well.
Be careful how you pprune!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not the first time that a change of FOI has caused grief by having a different interpretation of the legislation from their predecessor. 
Usually the poor sod on the receiving end just bites the bullet and complies,
however, I suggest that there is always the option of going further up the chain of command and getting a ruling from head office. 
I would have thought that there was a basic principle here that a person who has complied with the directions of an FOI cannot be made to change that at the direction of another FOI. CASA should consider that in cases where a FOI believes that the wrong interpretation of legislation has been applied that a ruling should come from higher up the food chain than the FOI level.
Usually the poor sod on the receiving end just bites the bullet and complies,
however, I suggest that there is always the option of going further up the chain of command and getting a ruling from head office. I would have thought that there was a basic principle here that a person who has complied with the directions of an FOI cannot be made to change that at the direction of another FOI. CASA should consider that in cases where a FOI believes that the wrong interpretation of legislation has been applied that a ruling should come from higher up the food chain than the FOI level.
Sunfish,
See the minor edit to my last post ---- "informal" directions about how to demonstrate asymmetric handling.
The fatality record in twin training over the years speaks for itself, with a mixture of under education and overconfidence being a very deadly mixture. It is still going on.
Poor old Green Goblin ---- an innocent abroad ----- or somebody from CASA.
Tootle pip !!
See the minor edit to my last post ---- "informal" directions about how to demonstrate asymmetric handling.
The fatality record in twin training over the years speaks for itself, with a mixture of under education and overconfidence being a very deadly mixture. It is still going on.
Poor old Green Goblin ---- an innocent abroad ----- or somebody from CASA.
Tootle pip !!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FOI's should not be interpreting legislation, that is for lawyers, they should be making sure it is applied correctly. If there is any doubt, as others have said, go further up the chain at least until you reach a lawyer!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Handbook
The multiengine pilot must keep in mind that the accelerate-go distance, as long as it is, has only brought the airplane, under ideal circumstances, to a point a mere 50 feet above the takeoff elevation. To achieve even this meager climb, the pilot had to instantaneously recognize and react to an unanticipated engine failure, retract the landing gear, identify and feather the correct engine, all the while maintaining precise airspeed control and bank angle as the airspeed is nursed to VYSE. Assuming flawless airmanship thus far, the airplane has now arrived at a point little more than one wingspan above the terrain, assuming it was absolutely level and without obstructions.
With (for the purpose of illustration) a net 150 f.p.m. rate of climb at a 90-knot VYSE, it will take approximately 3 minutes to climb an additional 450 feet to reach 500 feet AGL. In doing so, the airplane will have traveled an additional 5 nautical miles beyond the original accelerate-go distance, with a climb gradient of about 1.6 percent. A turn of any consequence, such as to return to the airport, will seriously degrade the already marginal climb performance.
Not all multiengine airplanes have published accelerate-go distances in their AFM/POH, and fewer still publish climb gradients. When such information is published, the figures will have been determined under ideal flight testing conditions. It is unlikely that this performance will be duplicated in service conditions.
The point of the foregoing is to illustrate the marginal climb performance of a multiengine airplane that suffers an engine failure shortly after takeoff, even under ideal conditions. The prudent multiengine pilot should pick a point in the takeoff and climb sequence in advance. If an engine fails before this point, the takeoff should be rejected, even if airborne, for a landing on whatever runway or surface lies essentially ahead. If an engine fails after this point, the pilot should promptly execute the appropriate engine failure procedure and continue the climb, assuming the performance capability exists. As a general recommendation, if the landing gear has not been selected up, the takeoff should be rejected, even if airborne.
As a practical matter for planning purposes, the option of continuing the takeoff probably does not exist unless the published single-engine rate-of-climb performance is at least 100 to 200 f.p.m. Thermal turbulence, wind gusts, engine and propeller wear, or poor technique in airspeed, bank angle, and rudder control can easily negate even a 200 f.p.m. rate of climb.
I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms.
Posted with memories of Les Morris.
The multiengine pilot must keep in mind that the accelerate-go distance, as long as it is, has only brought the airplane, under ideal circumstances, to a point a mere 50 feet above the takeoff elevation. To achieve even this meager climb, the pilot had to instantaneously recognize and react to an unanticipated engine failure, retract the landing gear, identify and feather the correct engine, all the while maintaining precise airspeed control and bank angle as the airspeed is nursed to VYSE. Assuming flawless airmanship thus far, the airplane has now arrived at a point little more than one wingspan above the terrain, assuming it was absolutely level and without obstructions.
With (for the purpose of illustration) a net 150 f.p.m. rate of climb at a 90-knot VYSE, it will take approximately 3 minutes to climb an additional 450 feet to reach 500 feet AGL. In doing so, the airplane will have traveled an additional 5 nautical miles beyond the original accelerate-go distance, with a climb gradient of about 1.6 percent. A turn of any consequence, such as to return to the airport, will seriously degrade the already marginal climb performance.
Not all multiengine airplanes have published accelerate-go distances in their AFM/POH, and fewer still publish climb gradients. When such information is published, the figures will have been determined under ideal flight testing conditions. It is unlikely that this performance will be duplicated in service conditions.
The point of the foregoing is to illustrate the marginal climb performance of a multiengine airplane that suffers an engine failure shortly after takeoff, even under ideal conditions. The prudent multiengine pilot should pick a point in the takeoff and climb sequence in advance. If an engine fails before this point, the takeoff should be rejected, even if airborne, for a landing on whatever runway or surface lies essentially ahead. If an engine fails after this point, the pilot should promptly execute the appropriate engine failure procedure and continue the climb, assuming the performance capability exists. As a general recommendation, if the landing gear has not been selected up, the takeoff should be rejected, even if airborne.
As a practical matter for planning purposes, the option of continuing the takeoff probably does not exist unless the published single-engine rate-of-climb performance is at least 100 to 200 f.p.m. Thermal turbulence, wind gusts, engine and propeller wear, or poor technique in airspeed, bank angle, and rudder control can easily negate even a 200 f.p.m. rate of climb.
I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms.
Posted with memories of Les Morris.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 30th Jul 2010 at 09:23.
PLovett, you are right on if you ask me...
If two FOIs can't agree, you don't just comply with whoever happens to be in the room at the time!!
They need to go away, sort out the discrepancy (ie. sort your sh!t out CASA), then (this is IMPORTANT) communicate to the industry and each other the results, and apply same.
Is that so freaking much to expect!!!!!
CR.
If two FOIs can't agree, you don't just comply with whoever happens to be in the room at the time!!
They need to go away, sort out the discrepancy (ie. sort your sh!t out CASA), then (this is IMPORTANT) communicate to the industry and each other the results, and apply same.
Is that so freaking much to expect!!!!!
CR.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodnight ladies.
Well. it's been fun but, I ask you. Whats a girl going to do?.
"and CASA subsequently forbade the Auditing of themselves by an independent auditor".
"Don't know about WA, but at least one individual CASA employee involved in this imbroglio has apparently an interesting history in Darwin, before he departed for cooler climes, or was it to cool down".
"It's not just the "industry" record that should be subject to close scrutiny here".
"You are probably better off approaching the Shadow Minister or Today Tonight".
"The screaming skull will rush to the defense of the bureaucrats, but it is an untenable position".
"This is not the first time that a change of FOI has caused grief by having a different interpretation of the legislation from their predecessor".
"The fatality record in twin training over the years speaks for itself, with a mixture of under education and overconfidence being a very deadly mixture. It is still going on"
"I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms".
"communicate to the industry and each other the results, and apply same.
Is that so freaking much to expect!!!!!".
Have a good weekend guys. Tailwinds. Lilum (inter spinas).
PS. If for nothing else this thead has been valuable just to show the level of industry dislike and distrust of the 'authority" which exists and, worse, that we continue to struggle on despite them. How many guys have accepted the dictates, bitched about it later, but still grinded out the changes in the COM. It's a worry.
"and CASA subsequently forbade the Auditing of themselves by an independent auditor".
"Don't know about WA, but at least one individual CASA employee involved in this imbroglio has apparently an interesting history in Darwin, before he departed for cooler climes, or was it to cool down".
"It's not just the "industry" record that should be subject to close scrutiny here".
"You are probably better off approaching the Shadow Minister or Today Tonight".
"The screaming skull will rush to the defense of the bureaucrats, but it is an untenable position".
"This is not the first time that a change of FOI has caused grief by having a different interpretation of the legislation from their predecessor".
"The fatality record in twin training over the years speaks for itself, with a mixture of under education and overconfidence being a very deadly mixture. It is still going on"
"I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms".
"communicate to the industry and each other the results, and apply same.
Is that so freaking much to expect!!!!!".
Have a good weekend guys. Tailwinds. Lilum (inter spinas).
PS. If for nothing else this thead has been valuable just to show the level of industry dislike and distrust of the 'authority" which exists and, worse, that we continue to struggle on despite them. How many guys have accepted the dictates, bitched about it later, but still grinded out the changes in the COM. It's a worry.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only the name has changed
Just read this thread right though, freaking amazing. the only thing that has seemed to have changed in the last two decades are the names. there still seems to be dodgey operators and dodgey servants of the crown.
I can't see that the industry is any safer than what it was back then. aircraft are still crashing for the same reasons, businesses are still being shut down for the same reasons and no two minds can come to the same interpretation of any rule for the same reasons. and MPs still don't have a clue about how to make aviation a real part of commerce.
since i started playing the aviation game in the mid seventies i have lost track of how many blow in CEOs have come and gone in how many name changed depts. they have either fallen on their own swords or been stabbed in the back or rolled over in a change of Govt. I wonder what fate has in store for 'The Skull' (who came up with that name?, i love it).
One thing for certain CASA must be put on a leash. The CEO removed and replaced by a board with at least one member a high court judge. way to much power for one man to play with.
surprised someone hasn't caught up with "them" in the carpark.
FH
I can't see that the industry is any safer than what it was back then. aircraft are still crashing for the same reasons, businesses are still being shut down for the same reasons and no two minds can come to the same interpretation of any rule for the same reasons. and MPs still don't have a clue about how to make aviation a real part of commerce.
since i started playing the aviation game in the mid seventies i have lost track of how many blow in CEOs have come and gone in how many name changed depts. they have either fallen on their own swords or been stabbed in the back or rolled over in a change of Govt. I wonder what fate has in store for 'The Skull' (who came up with that name?, i love it).
One thing for certain CASA must be put on a leash. The CEO removed and replaced by a board with at least one member a high court judge. way to much power for one man to play with.
surprised someone hasn't caught up with "them" in the carpark.
FH
I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms.
Usually the hospital emergency department remains undisturbed, because there are no survivors.
Not always the case, the last one at Camden, (pulled the mixture at night) the check pilot died the following day, but the pilot being checked ( an American airline Captain in Australia for a flying holiday) took about three months to die of burns.
Since that one, we have had another fatal on twin training at Bankstown.
What a dreadful waste of life, and all completely unnecessary.
And the undereducated but overconfident dingbats want to still tell us about the "training value" of "real" engine failures ---- not zero thrust, and the "confidence building" alleged to result from landing with one feathered ----- your not a "real multi-engine pilot" if you haven't landed with one prop feathered.
With not a clue about the certification criteria for most (ex. "Commuter amendment") FAR 23 aircraft, which means, in reality "a single engine aeroplane with twice the chance of engine failure".
This garbage has been going on for years, how many more do we have to kill, before it stops????
Tootle pip!!