VMC roll on video

[Big Pistons Forever]

Then verify by pulling the prop back to just before the feather gate, as you will know right away if you are pulling back the RPM of the good engine...

How do you know whether or not you've pulled the correct prop control? Change in yaw? Listen carefully for a change in engine/propeller noise?

LnS.

**Edited to add: I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm legitimately curious.**

Both. If you don't believe me try it in flight. Set zero thrust with the throttle on one engine and cruise power on the other engine, then quickly but smoothly pull the working engine prop back to the minimum RPM allowed for the MP set. You will see that it would be quite obvious if you were trying to feather the wrong engine.

[DanWEC]

Referring to the original post- not so sure if it was the power management or the quickly bleeding airspeed (didn't drop the nose to maintain) that forced the spin.
There are different reactions on different planes. The common FTU multi engine rating technique is to firewall the throttles and props then identify and feather the dead engine. That works for low powered counter rotating trainers with no critical engine.

Conversely, If you attempt that technique on a -6 twotter and it was your critical engine that failed, you give the live engine full throttle and 620 hp will pull the aircraft right over, and......

Anyhow, googling new reports put the plane at either a 4 or 6 seater. Most of the 14 fatalities were on the ground. Awful.

[Colonel Sanders]

not so sure if it was the power management or the quickly bleeding airspeed (didn't drop the nose to maintain) that forced the spin

Dan: do you have your multi-engine endorsement? If so, you should
be familiar with the definition of Vmc, which is an airspeed marked on
the ASI in red, at the bottom end:

Vmc is determined at maximum gross weight, with the center of gravity [C of G] at the maximum aft position, at sea level, with the flaps set to the takeoff position, the landing gear retracted, with all engines developing maximum power at the time the critical engine fails and windmills, with a maximum of 5 degrees of bank into the good engine

Below Vmc, the rudder no longer has enough effectiveness to oppose
the torque of the good engine.

Very simply, lower the nose to maintain blue line. These guys didn't
even lower the nose enough to maintain red line. After an engine
failure in a piston twin, lower the nose. No one ever lowers the nose,
they maintain the same deck angle as before the engine fails, the
airspeed bleeds off, and a Vmc demonstration results.

[CpnCrunch]

Very simply, lower the nose to maintain blue line. These guys didn't
even lower the nose enough to maintain red line. After an engine
failure in a piston twin, lower the nose. No one ever lowers the nose,
they maintain the same deck angle as before the engine fails, the
airspeed bleeds off, and a Vmc demonstration results.

This is also an issue in PPL training...there are still many accidents where the one engine fails and the pilot stalls the plane trying to keep it in the air or return it to the runway. Why isn't this drilled into all students? (it certainly was for me, and I think about it before each takeoff).

I've never flown a twin, but I would imagine that if you sit there twiddling your thumbs after an engine failure you'll start bleeding off airspeed pretty quickly.

[CFR]

Very simply, lower the nose to maintain blue line. These guys didn't
even lower the nose enough to maintain red line. After an engine
failure in a piston twin, lower the nose. No one ever lowers the nose,
they maintain the same deck angle as before the engine fails, the
airspeed bleeds off, and a Vmc demonstration results.

This is also an issue in PPL training...there are still many accidents where the one engine fails and the pilot stalls the plane trying to keep it in the air or return it to the runway. Why isn't this drilled into all students? (it certainly was for me, and I think about it before each takeoff).

I've never flown a twin, but I would imagine that if you sit there twiddling your thumbs after an engine failure you'll start bleeding off airspeed pretty quickly.

Again I can only speak from my vast 15 hours of experience, but there are a few mixed issues creeping into this thread. The nose is lowered IF required. On take-off if you have not reached the blueline with a clean airplane you will likely have to lower the nose while you raise the gear, pull the flaps up and feather the dead engine. Once you get to the blue line (Vyse - Best rate of climb - single engine [105mph in the Seneca]) with gear and flaps up you should be able to climb away depending on your density altitude and the load on board. Again for the Seneca at max weight it is around 185 fpm at sea level dropping to 110 fpm at 2000, 35 fpm at 4000 and -40 fpm at 6000 (should it then become least rate of desent?). That's why I am a bit puzzled by the video, gear and flaps are up.

While all of the responses to a failed engine are critical and time sensitive the first thing you do is control the yaw (the Seneca has counter rotating propellors so no critial engine from the yaw point of view). The airplane wants to yaw towards the dead engine which puts you in a draggy configuration, slowing you down and hides the wing with the dead engine from some of the relative air flow. So you have an advancing wing creating more lift than the receeding wing with less lift and blanketed airflow meaning the airplane wants to roll towards the dead engine. Vmc is the minimum speed you can fly at in that particular airplane (as determined in one of the posts above) below which you run out of rudder authority to control the yaw with the good engine at full power. So if you are approaching Vmc you need to reduce power, lower the nose to get to the blue line and then you can add power and climb away. So while I'm sure there are other reasons for this crash it appears he did not control yaw and manage his speed.

Lest the impression be that you are always on the ragged edge with an engine out - the bulk of multi training is done with one engine simulated to be inoperative. Once you clean up the plane, set rudder trim and maintain a slight bank into the good engine, it flys quite nicely thank you and virtually all training sessions end up returning and landing in this configuration with no problems (unless you have to do a go around - different story!) In fact at this point in my time on the plane I have more simulated single engine landings than normal landings with both fans operating!

I'm certain there are some newby errors in the above - so consider the source.

[Doc]

Referring to the original post- not so sure if it was the power management or the quickly bleeding airspeed (didn't drop the nose to maintain) that forced the spin.
There are different reactions on different planes. The common FTU multi engine rating technique is to firewall the throttles and props then identify and feather the dead engine. That works for low powered counter rotating trainers with no critical engine.

Conversely, If you attempt that technique on a -6 twotter and it was your critical engine that failed, you give the live engine full throttle and 620 hp will pull the aircraft right over, and......

I've got a chunk of time on a Two Otter. Not very recent, but I seem to remember "props up, throttle up" just like you describe. The only time an engine really died on me in the beast, there was no problem. Caused by my FO's parka hood catching the fuel control lever on the right side and starving to poor thing of it's fuel. Pretty funny in hindsight.
As long as you're above VMC, there is no reason to think the mighty 620 hp on the other side would perform as you describe.
Matter of fact, props full fine, and max power is the usual method. This accomplishes another purpose other than staying in the air. Selecting max "poop" also increases the yaw caused by the engine failure, making it far easier to identify the failed engine. I had an engine calf on a reduced power setting down wind, and I almost didn't notice it. It auto feathered, and due the the turbulence, I might have not noticed it at all. Stick with the max power thing...you can always reduce power....but you can't always ad it.

[CFR]

Selecting max "poop" also increases the yaw caused by the engine failure, making it far easier to identify the failed engine...

I am another victim of TV education. Every movie ever made where an engine fails on an aircraft it is preceeded by "pocketa, pocketa" noises with some visual clue from the engine (sparks, smoke flames) followed by the sounds of the engine spooling down and then everyone immediately looking at the failed engine. I was surprised that sometimes it takes a bit to figure out that an engine has failed and which one it is. One of the air exercises was failing an engine in a level turn, I already had a bit of rudder in and simply had to adjust the rudder input and it took a few seconds to realize why!

Where are the flashing lights, buzzers, and an arrow pointing to the dead engine!

[DanWEC]

Referring to the original post- not so sure if it was the power management or the quickly bleeding airspeed (didn't drop the nose to maintain) that forced the spin.
There are different reactions on different planes. The common FTU multi engine rating technique is to firewall the throttles and props then identify and feather the dead engine. That works for low powered counter rotating trainers with no critical engine.

Conversely, If you attempt that technique on a -6 twotter and it was your critical engine that failed, you give the live engine full throttle and 620 hp will pull the aircraft right over, and......

I've got a chunk of time on a Two Otter. Not very recent, but I seem to remember "props up, throttle up" just like you describe. The only time an engine really died on me in the beast, there was no problem. Caused by my FO's parka hood catching the fuel control lever on the right side and starving to poor thing of it's fuel. Pretty funny in hindsight.
As long as you're above VMC, there is no reason to think the mighty 620 hp on the other side would perform as you describe.
Matter of fact, props full fine, and max power is the usual method. This accomplishes another purpose other than staying in the air. Selecting max "poop" also increases the yaw caused by the engine failure, making it far easier to identify the failed engine. I had an engine calf on a reduced power setting down wind, and I almost didn't notice it. It auto feathered, and due the the turbulence, I might have not noticed it at all. Stick with the max power thing...you can always reduce power....but you can't always ad it.

Interesting. I've never flown a -6, but I was just relaying what a FlightSafety instructor was telling me about them. He did my Group 1, and teaches the certifications on the Twotter. Could have mentioned a below vmc condition in the conversation and I missed it.

[Colonel Sanders]

below vmc

Probably. If you see the needle below redline on the ASI, it's
likely time to pull both throttles back all the way and put the
nose down.

Or, your pitot-static system is hosed. Could be either one,
and you get paid the Big Bucks to figure out which it is.

[Doc]

You know, another thing nobody has mentioned is the "partial" engine failure. If an engine has totally calved, it causes nothing but drag, and should be taken out of the equation ASAP....BUT......there's always a "BUT" isn't there? WHAT IF the failed engine is still producing thrust? On pistons, check your MP. If it's gone to barometric, it's most likely toast, but if it's still pulling 18 inches or so, it's still pulling at least some of it's weight?(In the case of something like a Navajo etc, losing the "blower" can feel like an engine failure, when you're just gone to a normally aspirated engine on one side) At least it's better than if you feathered it. What to do? If you have the time to notice this, (and you well may not) you might want to let help out, at least till you have a safe amount of air under your ass, and a comfortable number on your ASI?
Thoughts on this one?

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

CFR Wrote: "On take-off if you have not reached the blueline with a clean airplane you will likely have to lower the nose while you raise the gear, pull the flaps up and feather the dead engine."

I just shuddered a bit thinking about the sink rate when you slap up those flaps.

[Colonel Sanders]

nobody has mentioned is the "partial" engine failure

If I think it's still producing some net thrust, all the levers stay
forward at low altitude & airspeed, and I couldn't care less about
"saving the engine". As long as it's not on fire (wing spar), it stays
turning. I couldn't care less about temps or pressures on the failed
engine.

Only concern would be is, if for some reason I can't feather it
later, but I could feather it now?

All above is worth what you paid me for it.

[Doc]

CFR Wrote: "On take-off if you have not reached the blueline with a clean airplane you will likely have to lower the nose while you raise the gear, pull the flaps up and feather the dead engine."

I just shuddered a bit thinking about the sink rate when you slap up those flaps.

Keep in mind, if the airplane is "clean" the flaps and gear are already up. If you're above your rotation speed, you should be well above both stall speed and VMC. There may be no reason to give up the ghost and land with that excessive sink rate. You can maintain level flight, perhaps even climb a little. Keep in mind, "blue line" is your best rate of climb, single engine. This doesn't mean you can't climb at a lower airspeed. You may well be able to. If as suggested, you were to rotate at 95 instead of 85, the airplane would be at 105, or very close to it pretty much immediately. BUT, it won't go anywhere with the gear down. It has to be cleaned up. Or landed. I don't know of any low powered piston twin that will a) accelerate, b) climb, on one engine with the gear hanging out in the breeze.

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

Doc I also would like to hear what people think about that "partial" failure.
During my MIFR training in Oshawa on a Seneca, we got airborne (4 on board) Me left seat, my instructor the PIC right seat, another instructor behind me, and his student with him.
+4 degree day. Winds about 180deg. ceiling roughly 500' agl. We were going to Trenton for PAR approaches. Actual IMC was flight planned. I believe 4000' was our planned altitude. I forget why we were a wrong way altitude, might have been icing on the ASEP.
Anyways, we power up, get airborne off RWY 12, have blue line, cleaned up airplane, and power back to climb power. The right engine EGT gauge is climbing way above normal. I ask the student to look at the right engine for anything visibly wrong, he says he can hear it popping now (once we powered back he could discern the sound of it I guess).
We're just skimming the bottom of the Overcast, and the threshold of runway 22 is just under my left wing. Everything in me wants to remain under the OVC and teardrop to runway 23, would have landed within 2 minutes of diagnosis.
The instructor/PIC tells me "NO, continue climb to FPL altitude 4000' and we'll contact Toronto TML."
He tells them we have to return to Oshawa, they of course ask if we have an emergency, he says no.
I power back the hot engine, so it is still "helping us out", and we climb into IMC, fly 7 miles east of Oshawa while changing plan with TML, then turn left, fly 15 miles west to intercept the Localizer for runway 12, shoot the approach and nearly 20 minutes after diagnosis, we land.
Oshawa Tower confirms hearing popping noises from our airplane on final.
We had a partial power loss, utilized what we could, and in the end, a safe outcome.
I still feel as though I'd have rather landed on 23, being that we had blue line. Maybe that's my bush-rat instincts.
Would have had to be a shallow turn, being I would have been turning into the good engine.
Or was the instructor right?
Could that have been a case of following the SOP's blindly?

[mag check]

Then verify by pulling the prop back to just before the feather gate, as you will know right away if you are pulling back the RPM of the good engine...

How do you know whether or not you've pulled the correct prop control? Change in yaw? Listen carefully for a change in engine/propeller noise?

LnS.

**Edited to add: I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm legitimately curious.**

Both. If you don't believe me try it in flight. Set zero thrust with the throttle on one engine and cruise power on the other engine, then quickly but smoothly pull the working engine prop back to the minimum RPM allowed for the MP set. You will see that it would be quite obvious if you were trying to feather the wrong engine.

This has caused pilots to shut down the wrong engine, when the problem is a runaway governor, and not an engine failure.

you should
be familiar with the definition of Vmc, which is an airspeed marked on
the ASI in red, at the bottom end:

That red mark denotes Vmc at sea level. At all other altitudes the Vmc will be lower, assuming normally aspirated.
On certain twins, the installation of VG's drop Vmc below stall, which helps to foolproof it.

[Doc]

Doc I also would like to hear what people think about that "partial" failure.
During my MIFR training in Oshawa on a Seneca, we got airborne (4 on board) Me left seat, my instructor the PIC right seat, another instructor behind me, and his student with him.
+4 degree day. Winds about 180deg. ceiling roughly 500' agl. We were going to Trenton for PAR approaches. Actual IMC was flight planned. I believe 4000' was our planned altitude. I forget why we were a wrong way altitude, might have been icing on the ASEP.
Anyways, we power up, get airborne off RWY 12, have blue line, cleaned up airplane, and power back to climb power. The right engine EGT gauge is climbing way above normal. I ask the student to look at the right engine for anything visibly wrong, he says he can hear it popping now (once we powered back he could discern the sound of it I guess).
We're just skimming the bottom of the Overcast, and the threshold of runway 22 is just under my left wing. Everything in me wants to remain under the OVC and teardrop to runway 23, would have landed within 2 minutes of diagnosis.
The instructor/PIC tells me "NO, continue climb to FPL altitude 4000' and we'll contact Toronto TML."
He tells them we have to return to Oshawa, they of course ask if we have an emergency, he says no.
I power back the hot engine, so it is still "helping us out", and we climb into IMC, fly 7 miles east of Oshawa while changing plan with TML, then turn left, fly 15 miles west to intercept the Localizer for runway 12, shoot the approach and nearly 20 minutes after diagnosis, we land.
Oshawa Tower confirms hearing popping noises from our airplane on final.
We had a partial power loss, utilized what we could, and in the end, a safe outcome.
I still feel as though I'd have rather landed on 23, being that we had blue line. Maybe that's my bush-rat instincts.
Would have had to be a shallow turn, being I would have been turning into the good engine.
Or was the instructor right?
Could that have been a case of following the SOP's blindly?

I guess it's my "bush rat" instincts kicking in as well, but I agree with you. If you are in VMC, and can maintain VMC, I'd have opted for your "tear drop" back to a runway. The only caveat here is easily and safely being able to maintain visual contact with the runway. You had good AS and a questionable engine.....it's time to depart from your FTU's SOP and go land the puppy. If you had developed a serious problem in a Seneca with 4 on board, your instructor's hands would have been full indeed. You were correct. At least from my point of view. Cancel IFR, and you did have an emergency. Pilot's hesitate to declare an emergence. I've never understood that line of thinking?? You have become PRIORITY and want to land RIGHT NOW. No worries.....it's just paper work.

[CFR]

CFR Wrote: "On take-off if you have not reached the blueline with a clean airplane you will likely have to lower the nose while you raise the gear, pull the flaps up and feather the dead engine."

I just shuddered a bit thinking about the sink rate when you slap up those flaps.

Normal take offs are at "0" flaps so they are not an issue. Short field uses 0 to 25 with a recommended climb speed of 90. One of the checklists I have says to rotate at 70 mph when using 25 degrees of flaps and is then followed by big red letters "CAUTION: Vmc = 80 mph" and climb at 90 this is where you are in a bad place for a few seconds until you have cleared the obstacles and accelerate to 105 mph. Maybe it's because it's "chicken Thursday" but I am not yet prepared to voluntarily use a short field just for fun.

At this point my reason to fly a twin is both for fun and to make quality use of building hours while sorting out my Cat 1 medical (an entirely different and frustrating thread!) so I can instruct. Luckily I can afford to rent the Seneca from time to time to go on short trips but it is not frequent enough for me to say I am the complete master of the airplane, hence sticking to checklists (with added details of my own) and establishing and sticking to personal limitations (Ie: at present I always ensure I am below 4000 lbs at take-off so I don't have to worry about the max landing weight). I also firmly intend to grab an instructor on occasion and go through the drills, we train and train at the beginning but should the time come to use the engine out skills, when was the last time they were practiced? Hesitation can kill in some flight regimes and looking at the video a few times enlarged and in slow motion (given it is not the best quality) it appears no rudder input and some indication of a bunch of aileron, conditions that would assure the outcome that transpired!

[Doc]

CFR Wrote: "On take-off if you have not reached the blueline with a clean airplane you will likely have to lower the nose while you raise the gear, pull the flaps up and feather the dead engine."

I just shuddered a bit thinking about the sink rate when you slap up those flaps.

Normal take offs are at "0" flaps so they are not an issue. Short field uses 0 to 25 with a recommended climb speed of 90. One of the checklists I have says to rotate at 70 mph when using 25 degrees of flaps and is then followed by big red letters "CAUTION: Vmc = 80 mph" this is where you are in a bad place for a few seconds until you have cleared the obstacles and accelerate to 105 mph. Maybe it's because it's "chicken Thursday" but I am not yet prepared to voluntarily use a short field just for fun.

At this point my reason to fly a twin is both for fun and to make quality use of building hours while sorting out my Cat 1 medical (an entirely different and frustrating thread!) so I can instruct. Luckily I can afford to rent the Seneca from time to time to go on short trips but it is not frequent enough for me to say I am the complete master of the airplane, hence sticking to checklists (with added details of my own) and establishing and sticking to personal limitations (Ie: at present I always ensure I am below 4000 lbs at take-off so I don't have to worry about the max landing weight). I also firmly intend to grab an instructor on occasion and go through the drills, we train and train at the beginning but should the time come to use the engine out skills, when was the last time they were practiced? Hesitation can kill in some flight regimes and looking at the video a few times enlarged and in slow motion (given it is not the best quality) it appears no rudder input and some indication of a bunch of aileron, conditions that would assure the outcome that transpired!

You have 15 hours of twin time. This ain't the Battle of Britain. Stay away from any situation that would require you to even THINK about using 25 flap and rotating at 70!! You don't need to. Ever. Stay away from such nonsense! The Seneca has a max landing weight? Really? If you have a problem......ANY problem.....disregard ANY landing weight restrictions! Stick to longer runways to get your comfort level up.

[CFR]

Doc I also would like to hear what people think about that "partial" failure.
During my MIFR training in Oshawa on a Seneca, we got airborne (4 on board) Me left seat, my instructor the PIC right seat, another instructor behind me, and his student with him.
+4 degree day. Winds about 180deg. ceiling roughly 500' agl. We were going to Trenton for PAR approaches. Actual IMC was flight planned. I believe 4000' was our planned altitude. I forget why we were a wrong way altitude, might have been icing on the ASEP.
Anyways, we power up, get airborne off RWY 12, have blue line, cleaned up airplane, and power back to climb power. The right engine EGT gauge is climbing way above normal. I ask the student to look at the right engine for anything visibly wrong, he says he can hear it popping now (once we powered back he could discern the sound of it I guess).
We're just skimming the bottom of the Overcast, and the threshold of runway 22 is just under my left wing. Everything in me wants to remain under the OVC and teardrop to runway 23, would have landed within 2 minutes of diagnosis.
The instructor/PIC tells me "NO, continue climb to FPL altitude 4000' and we'll contact Toronto TML."
He tells them we have to return to Oshawa, they of course ask if we have an emergency, he says no.
I power back the hot engine, so it is still "helping us out", and we climb into IMC, fly 7 miles east of Oshawa while changing plan with TML, then turn left, fly 15 miles west to intercept the Localizer for runway 12, shoot the approach and nearly 20 minutes after diagnosis, we land.
Oshawa Tower confirms hearing popping noises from our airplane on final.
We had a partial power loss, utilized what we could, and in the end, a safe outcome.
I still feel as though I'd have rather landed on 23, being that we had blue line. Maybe that's my bush-rat instincts.

My gut would be with you to make the call and land soonest - partial power can become no power pretty quick!

Would have had to be a shallow turn, being I would have been turning into the good engine.

Do I have something wrong? I thought caution turning into the dead engine

J

[CFR]

CFR Wrote: "On take-off if you have not reached the blueline with a clean airplane you will likely have to lower the nose while you raise the gear, pull the flaps up and feather the dead engine."

I just shuddered a bit thinking about the sink rate when you slap up those flaps.

Normal take offs are at "0" flaps so they are not an issue. Short field uses 0 to 25 with a recommended climb speed of 90. One of the checklists I have says to rotate at 70 mph when using 25 degrees of flaps and is then followed by big red letters "CAUTION: Vmc = 80 mph" this is where you are in a bad place for a few seconds until you have cleared the obstacles and accelerate to 105 mph. Maybe it's because it's "chicken Thursday" but I am not yet prepared to voluntarily use a short field just for fun.

At this point my reason to fly a twin is both for fun and to make quality use of building hours while sorting out my Cat 1 medical (an entirely different and frustrating thread!) so I can instruct. Luckily I can afford to rent the Seneca from time to time to go on short trips but it is not frequent enough for me to say I am the complete master of the airplane, hence sticking to checklists (with added details of my own) and establishing and sticking to personal limitations (Ie: at present I always ensure I am below 4000 lbs at take-off so I don't have to worry about the max landing weight). I also firmly intend to grab an instructor on occasion and go through the drills, we train and train at the beginning but should the time come to use the engine out skills, when was the last time they were practiced? Hesitation can kill in some flight regimes and looking at the video a few times enlarged and in slow motion (given it is not the best quality) it appears no rudder input and some indication of a bunch of aileron, conditions that would assure the outcome that transpired!

You have 15 hours of twin time. This ain't the Battle of Britain. Stay away from any situation that would require you to even THINK about using 25 flap and rotating at 70!! You don't need to. Ever. Stay away from such nonsense! The Seneca has a max landing weight? Really? If you have a problem......ANY problem.....disregard ANY landing weight restrictions! Stick to longer runways to get your comfort level up.

Yup my thinking exactly long runways, clear skies, no pressure to fly. Seneca max takeoff 4200 max landing 4000. Even with mixture rich on both engines it can take some time to burn 200 lbs, but as you say if you need to put it on the ground sooner rather than later a max landing weight may be the least of your worries! The drill given to me in that case is to "be gentle..."

[mag check]

Yah, 4200, you can't grease it on legally, but drop to 4000 and you can carrier land it circuit after circuit.

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

I didn't have a dead engine, just an underpowered one.
Wasn't concerned about Vmc roll (where you're right, you don't turn into the dead engine), airspeed we had, but would have made a wide base and shallow turn concerned about skidding onto final, left foot controlling yaw, while in a left turn with the wind at our tail on "base" during the teardrop.
As in float flying, if making your turn to final can't be into wind, then at least back your base leg up, and make a shallower turn to final.
That's just good airmanship.

There's always someone out there who misses the point of the story

But then again there's always someone who makes the story about themselves like I just did.

[CFR]

I didn't have a dead engine, just an underpowered one.
Wasn't concerned about Vmc roll (where you're right, you don't turn into the dead engine), airspeed we had, but would have made a wide base and shallow turn concerned about skidding onto final, left foot controlling yaw, while in a left turn with the wind at our tail on "base" during the teardrop.
As in float flying, if making your turn to final can't be into wind, then at least back your base leg up, and make a shallower turn to final.
That's just good airmanship.

There's always someone out there who misses the point of the story

But then again there's always someone who makes the story about themselves like I just did.

thanks! for a minute there I thought I had it bass ackwards!

[Cat Driver]

I didn't have a dead engine, just an underpowered one.

Anyways, we power up, get airborne off RWY 12, have blue line, cleaned up airplane, and power back to climb power. The right engine EGT gauge is climbing way above normal. I ask the student to look at the right engine for anything visibly wrong, he says he can hear it popping now (once we powered back he could discern the sound of it I guess.

From your above description of what happened you had enough reason to consider it an emergency and should not have entered cloud and flown such a long trip back to the airport you could see before entering cloud.

As to being above max landing weight the only question I have is why in hell would anyone choose to depart on a training IFR flight above the max landing weight?????

P.S.::

I am aware you did not state you took off at max take off weight.

[CFR]

At our FTU the Seneca is most often kept full. Dipping tanks is useless once it drops below the level of the outboard tanks and from then on you are relying on the gauges to figure out how much fuel is on board. When I finally had my rating I took my wife, daughter and son-in law for an hour+ flight. The plane had full tanks and we would have been just under 4200. Running rich the whole time I could have burned off the difference but a) who wants to do that and b) if I have to come back sooner I am over max landing. So we used the portable tank to take off 35 gallons of fuel. A bit of a PITA but I was comfortable doing that rather than fly full for the 1 hour flight. Not everyone might do the same.