Advice on Multi-Engine Rating
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alloverit said...
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
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) ???
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
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 16th Mar 2015 at 21:20.
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?)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by NOTAM; 19th Mar 2015 at 00:25.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 
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.
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Square Bear
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.
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.
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!? 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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: sYDNEY
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
