Hey guys,

Quick question for you. I am considering Confederation College for the Aviation program, which only provides me with a CPL and group 3 instrument rating. My question is, when I go to do my multi-ifr training elsewhere, do I just simply get my multi-engine rating, and then combine it and do a flight test to get my group 1 instrument rating, or do I need to do my multi rating, and then do another "multi-ifr" training program?

Please let me know If I need to clarify further.

Thanks!

Youre correct in the first statement, all you will need is a multi rating and then upgrade, so a few flights to get used to the plane and that's it!

If you went and did your group 3, and then decided to upgrade to a group 1, the the IFR portion should be nothing but a review. Remember, however, that you will have the added challenge of flying at least one approach and landing with a “failed” engine.

that you will have the added challenge of flying at least one approach and landing with a “failed” engine.

What is so difficult about flying an approach and landing with a simulated engine failure?

The question is meant to be genuine because I don't understand how it is a challenge.

It's not much more difficult, especially if you just did your ME rating before that... Just some added yaw and different power settings really.

Quick question for the ME pilots of Avcanada: with an an engine failed on a multi-engine aircraft (non-centerline thrust) and the ball centered, are you flying coordinated?

Why limit yourself to multi-engine airplanes?
If you're in *any* airplane, with the ball centred, does that mean you must be in co-ordinated flight?

Depending on the aircraft, co-ordinated flight with a failed engine requires you to bank the aircraft 3-5 degrees towards the operating engine, while keeping the turn co-ordinator ball half it's width (often centered on either the right or left black line) towards the good engine. This is done to counteract the slipping tendency caused by the operative engine. Again, it depend on the aircraft, but I believe the general rule can be applied to most light twins.

This is just gouge. The right answer is that it is not coordinated. There are some certification requirements that talk about up to 5 degrees of bank to define Vmca (which are determined through flight test). It is true of any assymetric configuration.

The "sideslip" indicator is really a sideforce indicator: it indicates how balanced the lateral forces are (for a well calibrated "sideslip" indicator, ball between the lines means no lateral force and, in a symmetrical configuration, no sideslip. Since no airplane is truly symmetrical (even single props will have unballanced airflow over its surfaces, depending on the side, the "sideslip" indicator never really indicate true coordinated flight.

...so your question was just a quiz.

AuxBatOn wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:32 pm Quick question for the ME pilots of Avcanada: with an an engine failed on a multi-engine aircraft (non-centerline thrust) and the ball centered, are you flying coordinated?

No.

photofly wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:20 pm Why limit yourself to multi-engine airplanes?
If you're in *any* airplane, with the ball centred, does that mean you must be in co-ordinated flight?

Not usually.

For anyone who's interested, there's more detail here: http://www.flightwriter.com/2012/09/step-on-ball.html.

How about sailplanes.

C.W.E. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:23 pm How about sailplanes.

If they are not symmetrical (heavy side, assymetrical drag, etc) same thing applies. If you are using a string to coordinate your turn then a centered string means no sideslip but may not mean a centered ball..

Does a ball work in a gyroplane?

If not why not?

It will indicate sideforce, just like any other "sideslip" indicator.

Do pusher thrust gyroplanes have a turn co-ordinator in them to use when turning?

Do tractor trust gyroplanes have turn co-ordinators in them to use when turning?

Aside from the subject of determining balanced turns of all the flying machines I have ever flown the gyroplane was the most manoeuvrable and fun to fly.

And getting the Commercial Gyroplane Pilot License was the most difficult, exam and flight test wise, not to mention expensive.

For your gyroplane question, I am going by scientific intuition as I have not studied nor flown Gyroplanes.

I would say that, in practical terms, you do not need one as there are no surfaces to induce sideslip in a turn, the rotor is not driven and the stream from the prop and the airflow will make the airframe weathervane, coordinating your turns for you. The rudder only really acts as a mean to induce sideslip vs correcting for sideslip.

You are close , the gyroplane uses a yaw string to co-ordinate the turn.

However its flight characteristics are rather complex and vary from machine to machine mostly due to the thrust line in the vertical plane of the machine, the higher the thrust line the more unstable the machine can be depending on use of power in a given manoeuvre.

They do not stall but they can bunt over and that is always fatal.

Anyhow for pure fun they are hard to beat.

AuxBATON, if you want some interesting reading research the fatality record of the RAF2000 a high thrustline pusher gyroplane with no horizontal stabiliser.

The designers of the gyro refused to add a H.S. to their product even after numerous bunt over fatalities.