maui it was not a standover tactic but merely a setting of the maximum risk I was prepared to expose myself to in a training environment with a Instructor whom I did not know well or at all. If you weren't going to do anything dumb why would you be so upset? As to my suitability to excercise the priveledges of the rating?

I have > 3500 multi piston command, >3500 turbine command, 5000+ jet with 1500 odd command, have held every CASA C+T approval available for Corporate Jets + IFR initial/renewal approvals. C+Ting experience on Islanders, C402, C404, Aerostar, Queenair, Twin Otter and Falcons among others.

I would hate to think how many engines 'failures' I have given other people over the last 20 years or how many have been given to me. Everything from closing a thrust lever on a Falcon as the nosewheel left the ground (V1/Vr) with a young trainee FO on his first jet type rating (no sim available for the type) to failing pistons on the mixture at a few hundred AGL in PNG where we might be 5000 amsl in ISA+20 at a highland airfield or we might be over water just airborne from a coastal strip in an Islander, C402 or C404. Over the years I have done quite a few training full shut downs and feathered approaches and go arounds in things like Islanders because that was the company culture..including at places like Mt Hagen (5400' amsl/ISA+20)..and in my 'yoof' before I discovered my own mortality I made trainees do them too. I have had Training captains who knew me well and who I knew well fail engines on things like Barons etc at < 100 AGL with the gear on its way up and have happily flown away...at training weights.

And I have had a bunch of real engine failures both in piston twins and jets.

Not to brag but I think I am qualified to asses risk and set safety guidlines on assy training in GA aircraft...certainly when I am paying for it.

When I come back to Oz on holidays and renew my Oz MECIR just to keep it valid, and so I can fly my Bonanza IFR when required, I use people like Chesty (John Chesterfield) at YBCG. An absolute gentleman and with SOOO MUCH experienced that he doesn't question my attitude to what we are about to do....in fact he embraces it...that's called maturity and experience. I would not get in a piston twin with the average flying school ME instructor. I did once about 10 years ago...never again.

:ok:

Maui. Aircraft gets airborne, gear selected up, blue line attained when instructor cuts the mixture. Student whacks on full wrong rudder (been there-done that) so instructor takes over control with IAS decaying alarmingly. Instructor has one hand on the control wheel real quick and then to re start the failed engine has to (with one hand) close the throttle of the "failed" engine, push the mixture control from ICO to rich, then rapidly introduce full throttle while at same time counteracting the sudden yaw caused by rapid application of full throttle on the previously failed engine.
And you tell me its all done in a poofteenth of a second compared with a simple throttle closure?

So Centaurus, your saying that you can't just bring the mixture to full rich with the throttle at TO power? Real question.:confused: :confused: :ouch:

Chimbu

I am impressed. Snap but in different areas. But I still would not be stood over. I would politely suggest you go find someone else to do it for you. And by the way it was in a testing environment that you framed the comment. Not a training environment.

Centaurus.

As you suggest, candidate gives you a boot full of wrong rudder. The throttle is still on the forward stop. Reintroducing full rich will give you intantaneous power. The engine will bark, but you will be on your way. And by the way if you do your failures without guarding the rudders, your a mug. My size 10's will overpower most candidates input fairly quickly when time is of the essence. Also as I said. Do it at the end of the endorsement, not the beginning. The guy should be on the ball. If you have incorrectlty asssesssed the level of his learning, perhaps you should reassess your own reading of standards.

Aerocat

A tad ultra conservative I think. May be appropriate if you are working out of real airports with bags of bitumen, however I woud never employ you for work in the bush.

Maui

I was told in no uncertain terms (also in company's ops manual) that if I had an EFATO but prior to Vyse I was to put it straight back down, runway or no runway. :confused:

Led

Aero was talking about anything up to 200'. With both engines operating gear should be up and VYSE a thing of the past by then.

On the flip side. If you retact your gear before VYSE, you are asking for trouble.

Overconservative!

Maui

I agree in one area...when I was training on twins, be they piston, turboprop or the Falcon, the 'correct' rudder peddle was never going to travel backwards more than the length of the hair on a Bee's dick.

I never slam any control anywhere...if you wanted to end the excercise in a 'hurry' smoothly moving the mixture back to rich while controling yaw gave you full power very quickly. The fact that the throttle is 'wide open' means only one thing, there is little to no impediment to air being sucked into the cylinders by the pistons. The prop is windmilling, the magnetos are sparking, smoothly restoring the mixture restores power smoothly.

During the course of an endorsement you do get to know what the trainee is capable of and thus the engine failures get a LITTLE bit more testing near the end. But at NO POINT in a CAR 3/FAR 23 piston twin do you start pulling mixtures or closing throttles at 20' with the gear down....unless there is LOTS of runway and you WANT the trainee to land straight ahead. Personally I have never been blessed with training runways that long.

For readers not yet twin endorsed or low time ME.

In my view the only way to conduct a takeoff in a piston twin is;

Assess whether the aeroplane should fly with an engine failure after gear retraction...most will at reasonable weights and reasonable temps. Some have enough performance so you can fly away even having to retract the gear after the failure...Barons, C310s etc...I wouldn't like to try in a Duchess at MTOW....or in ANY piston twin at 40 deg C.

Ensure FULL power is attained early in the takeoff roll.

Fly the aircraft off the ground as soon as it wants to fly.

Accelerate in a VERY gentle climb to at least Vyse+10kts. Note I am NOT advocating flying level at 2'!!!

When you move your hand from the throttles to retract the gear you are committing to fly. On a short runway that might be as soon as you have a positive climb and on a long runway it might be 50-100'. If the engine fails before this control yaw and close the throttles and land. Too many pilots break this rule and end up arriving inverted.

Climb out at Vyse+10-20kts or cruise climb. Speed is ESSENTIAL not altitude. DO NOT reduce power to some BS 25/25 setting...leave everything all the way forward.

At the higher speed you'll need less rudder to control yaw and you have 'ample' time to carry out the memory items and assess whether the aeroplane will actually climb away and allow a circuit and landing while you gently raise the nose and climb with the speed VERY gently reducing to Vyse.

When the airspeed falls to Vyse you lower the nose and peg it...trim and assess. If you are descending start looking for something soft and cheap to hit.

At this point if you are flying level, or just barely climbing, you can start to fine tune things a little to either achieve some climb or maximise what you are getting. Raise the dead engine up with about 5 degrees AOB...don't get paranoid about AOB just raise the dead engine 'a bit'. This effectively reduces the 'arm' through which the assymetric thrust is causing yaw and will allow a little bit less rudder which means a little bit less drag which means a little bit more performance. It may turn 100'/min down into level, level into 100'/min climb or 200'/min climb into 300'.

Climb in a straight line and get at least 4-500' under you before you even think about turning....yes if there is a hill in front miss it:rolleyes:.

When you have a minimum 500' or higher, if you're in a good performing aeroplane lightly loaded you might climb to a proper circuit height, lower the nose and accelerate. Reduce power a little if you can and trim the aircraft. At this point in MOST light twins, even the very light twins like Duchess, you should be able to happily cruise at 100+kts with less than full throttle.

Having achieved level flight return to land. At this point turning either way is ok but you may get marginally better performance turning into the live engine...the main thing is a balanced turn.

On base and finals don't be in a rush to slow down to much and definately don't shove the gear out turning base and fly like you might on two engines. Curving around base at Vref + 20kts and slight reduced power at 400-500' should have you comfortably around blue line speed if you need to GA. At 300' on finals select gear down and maintain power and ROD...the gear will start you decelerating nicely towards a NORMAL Vref either flapless or with only approach flap.

At this point you are NOT going to go around!!!!

From here on you are just playing power off against the desired speed reduction to arrive at the round out and flare at a normal Vref (maybe a few knots faster) and then close the throttle in a normal way and land in a normal way. You do NOT land at 'Blue line' speed and Vmca is irrelevant. At typical appoach power settings using the above technique you will stall long before reaching 'VMCA'. Vs is not affected by being on one engine so you're landing speed is not effected either. Above I said you might land a few knots faster than normal. I say this not because a few extra knots is required because it is not...but on one engine you tend to hang on to the speed subconciously and a few extra knots is not worth worrying about or trying to lose by any means available...just land a few knots faster and be happy.

You shouldn't but if you do end up a little lower than you want you have the extra speed in hand to gently raise the nose and correct without having to add any, or at least much, power.

Chimbu Chuck

We are in heated agreement. I totally endorse you comprehensive discription.:D

I do not believe that at any point, I advocated the 20' gear down cut. Appropriate height and time would be a more accurate description. Horses for courses.

What I cannot understand is the oft quoted concept expoused by the likes of Aerocat, wherein they will commit a basically serviceable aircraft to the junk yard, when it is possible to safely salvage the situation.
From memory the certification requirements are, among other things, that the aircraft should be able to achieve 1% at 5000' ISA. Given that level of performance, a properly executed recovery at sea level (or near to) will pose no problems, unless climbing toward rising terrain tree's etc. Granted there may be some airframe degradation, but if the aircraft is damaged bad enough to erode the performance significantly, one should not be putting his signature on the maintenance release.:ugh:

On the matter of standover tactics.:=
You and I are about to fly together. You in the LHS me in RHS. This can only be because you want something that I can give you, be that an endorsement, a renewal of an Instrument Rating or Instructor Rating, or the issue of some certification. this would be in my role as an ATO/FOI/Approved person/Chief Pilot/Chief Flying Instructor or any combination thereof. I have been approved and delegated by the regulator to conduct such operation.
Should you choose to dictate to me how I am to conduct such training/test, I will suggest you get someone else to do it for you, cos I will not. Regardless of the terms or what I intend to do/not do, and your considerable experience notwithstanding.
If you choose to take exception to my refusal to fly with you, you may:

1) Take your business elsewhere
2) Take the matter up with my superiors
3) take your complaint to the regulatory authority.

Maui

Maui I have to agree with Gimbo on this one, though my reply will be to politely open the mixture/throttle up and have a discussion.

I am sure you are good at what you do as you do continue to do it everyday BUT one thing you must learn is that even though you are the "captain" you can and will learn from the person in the right seat (or left in this case). To assume you know better if often fool hearty and most likely dangerous. Alwya keep one ear and one eye open and you never know what you may pick up sometimes.

I have done this before and will continue to do it. That is both listen and on the odd occasion put my foot down. I will not accept an engine failre if I deem a situation to be dangerous and am more then willing to discuss in the air and/or on the ground and usually do prior to the flight. This draws the "safety line" in the sand and pretty much tells me what sought of person you will be to fly with in a "Check and Training" role.


Many people are set in the ways they conduct themselves on tests, and good bless his sole, have brought highly experienced people to their unfortunate deaths. As for destroying the aircraft, well lets just say you can do what you can do but when it hits the fan are you landing ahead..... or just further ahead? The 1% is not always the case as we all know... have you flown a Twin Comanche lately at ISA +25?

Bula

I think you misunderstand the thrust.

This is not a Captain F/O two crew, line operation/crm, issue we are talking about.

The syllabus and standards required are mandated. This is not a democratic set up.

The regulator sets the requirements and delegates an individual to administer said requirements, be they check or training.

Go do study/exam at a university. Do you get to determine how the syllabus is administered? Do you get to dictate how the exams will be run?

With regard to the Twin Comannche at ISA +25. (Not in the last 35 years)

Isn't the PA30 limited for IFR ops. (1% requirement).

What is the useful load extracted from the P Charts/POH in those conditions. 3/5th of 5/8ths of FA I would suggest. Chimbu said it all. Do the procedure and if it is going downhill pick your soft spot, but do not ASSUME that it will not operate.
Maui

Sounds fair:E

I have no real problem with aerocat's limit although I limit it to 200' in a training/checking environment. Note he, and I, sad "with the gear down'. Maybe he flys Aztecs with only one hydraulic pump..or he's used to Seminoles with at best anemic performance...or maybe he has only flown off long runways.

In a training or checking environment I see no point in low altitude simulated failures...the accident statistics bare this out too. With the gear up at 100'/at or above Vyse he probably would be as happy as anyone to continue.

I have no problem with gear up before Vyse either. Often it is a good idea if the runway is of limited length. It allows you to accelerate to Vyse quicker and if you lose one before Vyse you put it down on it's belly and slide to a stop off the end of the runway...better that than risk snapping off the nosewheel on rough ground and flipping. I wouldn't advocate that at Mascot but I would at Redcliffe.

Some aeroplanes, like the Twin Commanche, 'wheel barrow' if you try and hold them on the ground until Vyse. If you are going to be off the ground below Vyse you may as well have the gear up minimising exposure time to an engine failure.

At several airstrips I can think of I used to get airbourne below Vmca and accelerate nearly level in C402s. Before anyone goes ballistic YES I agree that is extreme and YES taking 402s into such a strip is probably not all that clever...but 'we were bush pilots once... and young', to paraphrase a movie. And No I am not going to tell you how to get a loaded 402 into the air at really low speed off really short airstrip.

As to the certification requirement of 1% at 5000' in ISA.

Well that is demonstrated by a test pilot in a brand new aeroplane and with the added bonus of shutting down the engine in a controlled manner and optimising everything.

It bares no relationship to a 25 year old Duchess, Seminole, Twin Commanche which may be being flown by someone of low experience and minimal recurrent training on a 35 degree day out of an 800-1200m airfield. The 'OH !!!!' factor is too high and without 6 mthly recurrent training the chances of such a pilot successfully coping are proved to be minimal by the statistics. As an example I had an engine failure in a 402 at 50' with the gear retracting approaching Vyse once. No room to stop without hitting jungle at high speed. It took 4 minutes to get to 500' over the water passed the trees and I was very lightly loaded. I never got above 500' because of low cloud and heavy rain.

I was flying piston twins full time within the check and training auspices of a 3rd level airline, 6 mthly recurrent checks, and a training pilot as well. I think no one would argue that a 402 has more performance on one engine than a Seminole...although it aint much more:ok:

Barons, C310s, Chieftains, 402s etc do have better performance than typical training twins but you pay for that performance with more challenging handling assymetrically.

To return to the thread topic, and at the risk of upsetting Centaurus who has considerable (LOTS and LOTS) experience in this area.

In my view failing on the mixture v failing on the throttle is not the fundamental problem or greatest danger in assy training.

Altitude/speed when the failure is given, what happens next, and the knowledge and competence of the trainer are the main factors.

There are no circumstances where I can accept failing engines below 100' and at less than Vyse+10kts with the gear up in a training/checking environment. 200' is better.

The trainer/checker MUST have significant real multi experience...that precludes all low time instructors hour building.

The individual must have demonstrated ability and knowledge. This is actually tougher than it sounds...you would not believe the crap I have heard espoused by people with CASA approvals...and from CASA FOIs for that matter.

When I was tested for each type specific twin training approval I was tested by people who were VERY experienced on type and grotesquely experienced in general and VERY current. I also gained my individual approvals within the auspices of 3rd level airlines rather than the 50 ME TT/10 on type BS you see at flying schools and as a result had 500 to 1000 hrs on type in the earlier days and at least 200 on type later on. The Falcon was a different story.

Because of the skill, knowledge and experience of the people who trained me I got put through every drama a student could come up with in a 'controlled' environment. No trainee I ever experienced took me places where these guys hadn't taken me first...in fact not even close:uhoh:

I don't think there are any people left at CASA with the currency, knowledge, skill and experience AND the desire to pass it on. There would be relatively few left in Industry and I am not counting those that may have the desire to teach extreme stuff to a potential ME Instructor but shouldn't be because they don't have the knowledge, skill and experience themselves. There are a few though.

In my view twin training is sufficiently serious and the accident rates high enough that short of good Level D equivalent sims being used it should be so hard to get the training approval as to be bordering on impossible for the average flying school instructor.

Hmmm....Oz rules - but not necessarily what the aircraft was originally certified under.

1% climb up to 5000' DH is an Oz requirement - and only applies to *IFR* light twins -hence the somewhat unique Oz IFR weight limit. VFR types only had to be able to maintain altitude.

Elsewhere in the world eg the US FAR 23 under which most (?) were originally certified they only had to have their climb performance 'demonstrated' (<6000 lb MTOW). That can be a negative climb performance. Above 6000 lb TOW then the required climb performance isn't much: along the lines of 0.0027 x the sqr.root Vs (or similar. Can't remember the exact details).

I'm with CC on this with relatively minor variances in technique.

Blue line is the gear up point & that, in turn, is my attempt-to-fly point. I delay gear up if it's a long runway with plenty of room to land on the remaining and get the gear up as soon as I have +ve climb if it's a short/obstacle limiting strip.

I don't have a problem with mixture cuts because I teach (well, taught...) an expectation to land ahead for a failure below blue line & only try to go once gear is selected UP. Gear selected UP is the decision point between landing or trying to fly (but still have a Plan B to force land anyway).

The engine has everything ready to produce maximum power other than adding fuel to the airflow.

As others have mentioned it's prudent to guard the rudder pedals to prevent misapplication. No different to guarding the controls when teaching landings, spin & stall recovery etc.

Chimbu Chuck

Couldn't agree more. Particularily in relation to the requirements for Multi training approval. In my view this is almost entirely the cause of the decline iin standards and knowledge. Same goes for Intrument Training for command IR.

Sadly the regulator has blood on its hands in this regard.

Maui

I misread the post! :O
I was taught a similar thing at a flying training school (200ft for one rwy, 300ft for the other) but that was because we'd have 3500m of bitumen to land on. On shorter strips the determining factor was Vyse.


Chimbu Chuckles, great posts. :D
I suppose I should consider myself lucky I was taught by someone like those you describe?

I was actually just restating what I understood Chimbu chuckles to be telling his prospective testing officer. If it got mangled in translation, that is my fault.

You understood me perfectly:ok:

Just a few days ago I was discussing this very thing with a mate who is a senior checker at Ansettstar.

He recounted the time when he was doing a flight test in a seminole 20+ years ago and having had the engine fail he had it flying straight and level at full throttle but couldn't get anymore out of it. The 'instructor' had pulled the gear circuit breaker without saying anything and as a result the gear did not retract and no lights showed on the panel.

Someone like that needs taking out the back of a hangar and 'educating'.

I'll come and help.

Maui, I agree with you please dont get me wrong. I think more so I'm talking about methods above and beyond that reqiured which impose an unnecessary danger to both pilots onboard.

I have found by talking about this before the flight helps, especially when 2 experienced pilot are involved. :ouch: Saves the black eye :E

I wonder about this business of delaying the raising of the gear until you assess you can no longer land safely ahead from an airborne situation.

Having read quite a few POH, while there is advice on wotif you have an engine failure at various points on take off - I have yet to find manufacturer's advice which recommends deliberately choosing to delay raising the gear in order to let you throw it back on the deck.

My thoughts are regardless of the length of the runway you should retract the gear after lift off as soon as you have a positive rate of climb - same as jets. This enables quicker acceleration to safe single engine climb speed.
There is always going to be a window of several seconds after take off where an engine failure is going to require a pretty quick decision one way or the other. And if that decision is based on whether or not you have selected gear up or whether or not you have reached blue line, then now throw in your assessment of runway length remaining to plonk it down - wet or dry runway - night or day - seems too complicated to me.

A night take off with gear left down and thus longer time to get to blue line, is fraught with hazard in terms of judging a bunt-over single engine flapless landing with no anti-skid. Not for this little black duck.

Blue line is a meaningless figure as a decision figure. It is best single engine rate of climb and no more than that. It is not a decision speed quoted in any manufacturer's POH. Lose an engine in a Seminole 5 knots above the blue line of 88 knots and you will be unpleasantly surprised how quickly you have done in 10 knots below blue line due to the drag of the failed engine.

Far better to keep things simple and accept there is an inherent risk with light twins if you lose an engine shortly after lift off. It is all about rudder control and that means adequate speed. Just accept that the sooner you get the gear up after lift off and accelerate to a safe speed aabove Vmca the safer you will be - if you are competent. I am reminded of a ATSB report of a Seminole accident at Ballarat (?) where the instructor cut the mixture around 200 ft in excess of blue line but with the gear left down in accordance with the mantra of leaving the gear down until you can no longer land ahead. The student had no problem with the engine failure as he had speed to spare and he decided to continue. The instructor shouted he should abandon the take off climb as the decision point was agreed at gear up. The student hesitated a nano second so the instructor took over, closed both throttles, lost control and stalled in his attempt to land straight ahead. The wing broke off on impact and both pilots were lucky there was no fire.
What a total balls up by the instructor. I leave the reader to figure out who was to blame for a training accident involving to perfectly serviceable engines, two appropriately licenced pilots (student had 17 hours on the Seminole), and perfect weather. The instructor blamed the student for slow reaction!! And it was the bloody idiot instructor that was the direct cause of the accident.

I agree with all that...but would caution against any decisions being based on 'like we do in jets'.

There is just too many differences in handling and performance. Viva la difference is my attitude...one of the things that boils my blood quickest is innappropriate SOP transference between FAR25 certified jets and CAR 3, or if you're really 'lucky' FAR 23 GA types. As the average light twin, and some not so light twins, AFMs say...if you do everything right you will get a maximum ROC or a minimum ROD.

In my view piston twins offer a great deal in exchange for exposure on takeoff which is really not hugely greater than a heavy single...if you're prepared to pay the 300% cost premium.

That is the bottom line in my view...cost...the overall statistics suggest that any increased safety of one over the other is really to vague to actually quantify with any certainty. That is a shame because it should be a no brainer...I guess the no brainers are to blame.

As far as the holding onto the gear until blah blah is concerned I think it just stems from people being asked by the boss why the just parked an expensive twin on it's belly 50m from the other end of the runway.

Certainly I agree that with most twins, most of the time, the sooner you pull the gear up the better.

In fact, thread creap aside, I pull the gear up on my Bonanza as soon as + climb achieved. It's a whole other set of considerations and mindsets but leaving the gear down on any retractable has important considerations that many people are unaware of....given the questioning looks I get from people who fly my Bonanza.

Once I explain why I retract the gear quickly and demonstate it the light comes on.