Well you guys have been pretty nice to me so I have obviously not been provocative enough.......well I can fix that little problem I just need to break out the Tequila
Pet Peeves (continued)
8 ) MEIFR training in aircraft which do not have an operating 2 axis autopilot: Except for the simplest fixed gear singles, real world single pilot IFR without an autopilot is extremely foolish. But there is more to using an autopilot than turning it on. Understanding how the autopilot works what its annunciator panel is telling you and the SOP's that deal with how, why and when an autopilot should, and equally important when it should not be, used are basic IFR skills like all the other fundamental IFR skills. Students should be insisting that the MEIFR trainer has an autopilot and if not strongly consider taking their money elsewhere.
9) Takeoff briefing for twins used in training: I thing most T/O's briefing are mindlessly repeated without any thought about what criteria they are actually based on.
In particular you are in fantasy land if you think you have any possibility of flying away from a engine failure right after liftoff if the aircraft does not already have the gear and flaps up, a positive rate of climb established and the airspeed at or above blueline. After that you have some options as all you have to do in the event of an engine failure is pitch down, identify and verify the failed engine and then feather it. At this point it will either start climbing while maintaining airspeed.....or it won't.....in the latter case you have no choice but to close the throttle and take your lumps straight ahead.
Note nowhere in my description is the phrase "with insufficent runway I will".
In big airplanes life is simple; before V1 you stop , after V1 you go. There are no qualitative decisions required because the accident record amply demonstrated that when under the stress of a critical emergency demanding fast actions humans are not very good at making qualitative decisions. This has continued to be borne out by the number of accidents where the takeoff was rejected after V1 because the captain "thought" he had enough runway ahead to stop. The power of the concept of V1 is it allows a set of preprogrammed actions to take place without the requirement of analyzing a series of choices and then picking a course of action. So why don't we use the same concept for pilots which have vastly less experience than a big airplane driver ?
I believe the gear handle in single pilot ME operations should be treated the same as the V1 call. Assuming a flaps up takeoff (the norm for ME light aircraft training) when the aircraft has a positive rate of climb and is accelerating through blueline the pilot raises the gear. If the engine fails before the gear is raised both throttles are automatically closed, at the moment the gear is selected up the pilot makes the mental switch to the identify/verify/feather drill and will automatically continue the takeoff and after the engine is feathered confirm a positive rate of climb. No rate of climb again means closing both throttles. So in other words, just like like big airplanes it is a series of preprogrammed actions, but modified to meet the actual performance of a piston twin.
Well that should get the internet electrons humming
