Multi Engine Rating

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
Brad the Pilot
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:39 pm

Multi Engine Rating

#1 Post by Brad the Pilot » Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:30 am

Does anybody know of a good school to get a multi?
Preferbly around the Barrie area
---------- ADS -----------
  

Tango01
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: ON

#2 Post by Tango01 » Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:43 am

Canadian Flyers in CNB9
---------- ADS -----------
  
Timing is everything.

User avatar
meow
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: here and there

#3 Post by meow » Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:50 pm

You need to check out the prices first.. I know @ markham they rent their seminole for $230 and that includes the insurance. In kitchener (WWFC) they have 2 seminoles and they charge $225 plus $5 for insurance.. But in wwfc located at CYKF you can buy block time 6 hours for $1200..
elsewhere is too expensive.. Multi is easy and you'll probably need about 10 hours and you can do it in one week... And it's so much fun.
Good luck and have fun.
---------- ADS -----------
  
let's go somewhere far.....

User avatar
chipmunk
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:14 pm
Location: Canada

#4 Post by chipmunk » Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:03 pm

You might also want to check out Cornwall Aviation. They specialize in getting you in and out fast, and can hook you up with cheap accommodation. The instructors aren't going to waste your time (I did my multi ride with just over 3 hours training) and there's a DFTE on site - worth a call. Andre (if he's still there) is great.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
smokin_rivet
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:47 am

SFC

#5 Post by smokin_rivet » Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:52 pm

Scotia Flight Center has a seneca going for 260/hour all inclusive....even have accmodation.

May be a little far for the commute though .
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
fche
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:01 pm
Location: CYFD
Contact:

#6 Post by fche » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:23 pm

Sure getting the rating is fun. But why do it in such a hurry? If you can't afford to take your time, then you likely won't afford to fly a twin after the rating is yours.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
chipmunk
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:14 pm
Location: Canada

#7 Post by chipmunk » Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:19 am

fche wrote:But why do it in such a hurry? If you can't afford to take your time, then you likely won't afford to fly a twin after the rating is yours.
Ummm... lots of guys who are instructing already with no multi-rating like to take the minimum time off work to get everything done... plus if you do it quickly with back-to-back flights you will get more out of your training because you forget so much between flights as you would after taking say, a week off. And most pilots can't afford to take our time - the way we afford to fly a twin after is because someone else is paying for it. So unless you have a money tree in your backyard, why would you want to take your time and "enjoy" it? Seriously, the only thing different about it is when an engine fails, the scenery is the same for the rest of the flight.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
fche
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:01 pm
Location: CYFD
Contact:

#8 Post by fche » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:06 am

chipmunk wrote:Ummm... lots of guys who are instructing already with no multi-rating like to take the minimum time off work to get everything done... plus if you do it quickly with back-to-back flights you will get more out of your training
Sure, it is possible to get the rating quickly. My issue was whether it's desirable.
chipmunk wrote:And most pilots can't afford to take our time - the way we afford to fly a twin after is because someone else is paying for it.
Maybe, but does that still happen these days? Does someone with a bare multi rating ever get hired / paid to fly a twin?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

#9 Post by Cat Driver » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:40 am

" Sure, it is possible to get the rating quickly. My issue was whether it's desirable. "

Why would it not be desirable to get the rating as fast and as cheap as you can?

Chipmunk says he got his in just over 3 hours training, and that should be just about what it takes, if you have a good teacher that is not out to take your money.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

tom_phan
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:16 pm

#10 Post by tom_phan » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:24 pm

You should realistically plan on between 8-12 hrs for your multi rating. Have done a few of them myself. The harder you work at it, the cheaper it will be for you.

I find it difficult to believe you would be ready to go for a flight test after just three hours in the aircraft.

Canadian Flyers in markham or barrie would be good choices. pm me if you have any questions.
---------- ADS -----------
  

saxamaphone
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:58 pm

#11 Post by saxamaphone » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:29 pm

Why would it not be desirable to get the rating as fast and as cheap as you can?
Well...I, for one, appreciate the students who are in it to learn how to become good, safe pilots...not just get the line on their license that says they're a "multi pilot"

I absolutely agree that doing a rating quickly, with flights in close succession, will mean less review and therefore the student will complete the training with less flight time.

However...3 hours??? Come on. How can you say that this is the result of a "good" instructor? Sounds to me like an instructor that's teaching someone how to pass a flight test (which I believe could be done in 3 hours with a good student). I'd like to know that if I recommend a student for a multi flight test, that they know more than how to pass. If they're out flying a twin next week and have an engine failure after takeoff, I'd like to feel confident that they're not going to put it in the trees. I don't want to live with that on my conscience, and quite frankly, I think my students are happy that I'm doing that for them!
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

#12 Post by Cat Driver » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:50 pm

Well there is much to be said for giving lots and lots of training for any type of new airplane or category like wheels to floats...

...so on that comparison why is it that only seven hours are required to learn a completely new enviorement of aircraft operation when training to fly a sea plane and then say you need ten or twelve hours to get the hang of flying a twin engine airplane.

Can someone explain to me why learning to control a twin after an engine failure is more difficult and harder to learn than operating a sea plane? :smt021

Quote :


" I'd like to know that if I recommend a student for a multi flight test, that they know more than how to pass. If they're out flying a twin next week and have an engine failure after takeoff, I'd like to feel confident that they're not going to put it in the trees. I don't want to live with that on my conscience, and quite frankly, I think my students are happy that I'm doing that for them! "

I couldn't agree more and would never consider signing anyone off if I felt they did not have the skill and thought process to handle an engine failure at any time from taxiing to parking after the flight.

There are pilots who can be trained in less than five hours and are safe to sign off. And of course there will be some that will never really be profficient. An experienced teacher can soon seperate the skilled from the unskilled.

Cat.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

saxamaphone
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:58 pm

#13 Post by saxamaphone » Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:30 pm

Cat...I agree with you on the seaplane training too.

Hmmm...so why can't we do you seaplane rating all in one day? :roll: Well lets see...seaplanes are about changing conditions, and if we do that, what kind of variety in conditions do you think you'll get to experience?

I think as long as a student is safe when they are done their training, the hours will speak for themselves. High, low, whatever.

I tend to see students in the 10 hour area for multis...but they students I've trained have rarely had any kind of complex single time. So it's added a level to the training for them, plus it's generally a heavier plane than they're used to. But I can see someone who's proficient on a heavier, complex single really breezing through the multi training if they put their mind to it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

just another pilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Edmonton

#14 Post by just another pilot » Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:44 pm

People, people. It is an endorsement - not a rating :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
short bus
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:57 am

#15 Post by short bus » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:57 pm

wrong, you have to do a flight test for a multi rating, an endorsement someone just signs off.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
chipmunk
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:14 pm
Location: Canada

#16 Post by chipmunk » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:09 am

saxamaphone wrote:
However...3 hours??? Come on.
3.2 in the Seminole, 1.0 for the ride
3.7 IFR stuff in the Seminole, 1.4 for the ride (went from Group 3 to 1)

Most "complicated" thing before this was probably a Piper Warrior... Would you like to see the flight sheets of the school where I did this? Then would you like to talk to my chief pilot about the oh, 450 or so hours of multi hours safely flown over the past several months?

It's not rocket science!

ps Sorry for getting cranky - I don't like being called a liar 8)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Tango01
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: ON

#17 Post by Tango01 » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:55 am

just another pilot wrote:People, people. It is an endorsement - not a rating :roll:
The rating is endorsed on your licence by TC.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Timing is everything.

just another pilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Edmonton

#18 Post by just another pilot » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:24 am

As far as I knew a rating required a flight test. But, I had to do a flight test for my multi, and I didn't for my float...hmm TC semantics I suppose.
After all, is a person's ATPL still valid with an expired instrument rating? Because it used to be an Airline Transport Rating not a license.
Anyway, it is called a multi engine rating not endorsement?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Tango01
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: ON

#19 Post by Tango01 » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:47 am

Yeah ATPL was ATR before. Cat Driver knows better. Anyway, the Multi Engine is a Class Rating. The name of things differ from place to place, like in US they call the private licence a "certificate".
---------- ADS -----------
  
Timing is everything.

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

#20 Post by Cat Driver » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:17 am

You all will leap foward in light years if you pull your collective heads out of your rectums and forget agonizing over semantics.

Who really gives a f.ck what TC calls the addition to your license, what we should be concentrating on is how best to teach our students each new skill.

I really roll my eyes heavenward when I hear instuctors parrotting all that goofy crap in the flight instructor guide about the rules of learning, the only one that I can relate to is the rule of intensity and that would be the shock in their eyes after I kicked some idiot in the nuts when they start to bleat on and on about all the pablum in the instructors guide.

Teaching someone to fly does not require a degree in phychology and cluttering your mind up with goofy ideas only detracts from your ability to pass on the skills of flying.

When I owned my flight school it never ceased to amaze me that TC wanted to make young instructors think they can diagnose their students mental condition just by looking at them and spending a couple of hours in an airplane with them

Most of these instructors still were not mature enough to have to shave....

Anyhow back to the multi engine endorsement, rating or whatever gives you an erection when thinking about the discription. There is no set time that is needed to teach someone how to fly a twin, it will vary from individual to individual but should not take much more than five hours for the physical operation of the controls in flight to teach them how to control the thing when an engine fails.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

Wasn't Me
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:08 pm

#21 Post by Wasn't Me » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:27 am

Dry humping takes a lot of time off the training. The problem is that dry humping doesn't generate revenue or flyinf time for most operations. If time was spent on procedures before the engine turns you should be able to do it in under five hours. If money isn't a problem take longer, it's all tax deductable anyway.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I wish I could spell

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

#22 Post by Cat Driver » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:35 am

Wasn't Me :

I take it you are saying that it is all about flying schools making money, and not about quality instruction?

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

just another pilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Edmonton

#23 Post by just another pilot » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:51 am

Hmm. It wasn't an issue of training quality. I was merely curious as to what it was categorized as. As far as TC goes, I always thaought that a rating was something that could expire - eg. instructor/instrument, and an endorsement was an addition to ones license - eg. night/multi/float and would not require a renewal.
Cat. You used erection and rectum in the same post - bravo :smt038
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

#24 Post by Cat Driver » Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:29 pm

Just another pilot :

" Cat. You used erection and rectum in the same post - bravo "

Please be advised that just because I used these two devices in the same post do not take it to mean that I advise uniting the two in a physical encounter...

...however to each his / her own.. :smt003

The problem with bureaucrat speak is it will differ from region to region, country to country etc. so what I try and do is ignore a lot of it because sometimes using the wrong word will not cause you to vaporize.. :smt003

And Im sure that many of you can relate to my use of logic instead of blind trust in the system.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”