Multi Engine Rating in Alberta

[1000 HP]

I'm looking to get my Multi Engine Rating in Alberta or Saskatchewan. Preferably Edmonton or Saskatoon. I would like to do it quickly without any extra unnecessary classroom time, simulator time, etc. Is it still 5 hours or has that gone up? If it's not on the flight test I don't want to spend time doing it. I do not plan on renting your airplane afterwards.

Time and quality of training are of essence. Money is a secondary consideration. I'm looking for a June 2nd and 3rd window, with a flight test late on the 3rd. Doable or not?

PM me please,
1000 HP

[teh1pilot]

Hi 1000 HP.....

I am inclined to think that your expectations for how quickly things progress on Multi Rating are much too high. While I understand that money is generally not a factor, the amount of training will definitely be more than 5 hours. Every exercise your instructor will do with you is there for a reason, to succeed in the flight test. Compared to a single engine piston, a twin generally has a bit more complicated systems (Many of which for redundancy). Things like landing gear, fuel regulation, constant speed prop, etc etc, are a fair bit different than smaller light training aircraft, and will require some getting used to on the ground, followed by practice using them in the air. So, your instructor will do some ground work with you to get used to these systems, possibly a flight or 2 in a simulator, and then head out to the plane and start working on the exercises.

That being said, Transport might say it could take 5 hours, but like any other license, will generally take much longer than that regardless of your commitment. Take a browse around some of the flying clubs around Edmonton for example. Centennial Flight Center. Edmonton Flying Club, even Wetaskiwin Air Services....They all quote ~8-10 hrs in just strictly air instruction. Based on that, I think it would be very unrealistic to be able to fly about 3 flights/day, and be 100% engaged in the instruction at hand(at least for 3rd flight of the day). IMO, you're wasting your money taking that route.

To answer the other part of your question, while I'm not too familiar with any schools in Saskatchewan, Centennial Flight Centre was a quick, efficient, and very professional atmosphere to do your Multi. If you have any questions, PM me.

Cheers

[Colonel Sanders]

Compared to a single engine piston, a twin generally has a bit more complicated systems

With all due respect, 1000hp owns a Mooney, and is thus
not unfamiliar with retractable gear, constant speed prop,
cowl flaps, etc.

I agreeif you are coming from a C150, that a training twin
has a lot of new stuff, but if you are coming from a speedy
single, 5 hours is plenty for a (VFR-only) endorsement with
a reasonable amout of studying ahead of time.

1000hp needs to learn about:

1) particulars of that twin's fuel system and landing gear system
(normal and emergency procedures)

2) janitrol heater operation

3) to grab two engine controls instead of one

4) differential power for taxi on the ground

5) engine-out drill

Again, with all due respect, I could easily teach him the
above in 4 hours, with 1 hour left over for the flight test.

Some more stuff about multi flying:

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184438-1.html
http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/MultiTakeoff.htm

Do recall that while your ostensible objective is to get
"MEL" on your licence, the real purpose of your multi
flight training is to avoid doing this:

[1000 HP]

Good to hear the voice of reason. I friend of mine has taken his multi rating in 2 days. 5 hours of flying one day, and the flight test the next. Mind you, he is much smarter than me and has a great memory. Plus this was many years ago. I'd be happy if I could get it in 3 or 4 days..

My plans are VFR daytime flying. No IFR. I don't need or want to waste time learning all kinds of crazy stuff like the single engine point of no return while crossing to Greenland etc. ( I wrote the multi crew test once by accident instead of the inrat, got 58% ) Also, as the Colonel says, I have operated slightly more sophisticated aircraft such as Mooneys, but I have also flown large amounts of Amphibious Caravan, and the Otters with several fuel tanks and sometimes 16 or 18 foot boat on the side (very similar I bet to an engine out situation as far as rudder work), as well as 23 other types.

I did notice that some of the schools offer just flight training and some offer extensive groundwork. I'm favoring one that offers just the flight training. Show me what I need to pass the flight test, that's it. Beat it into me if necessary. Go ahead and bring a yardstick along. I am motivated.

It seems that since I learned to fly, and since I was an instructor back in the 80's, things have become needlessly more complex. Plus, in a lot of cases, the aircraft that my buddy got his multi on 30 years ago is still being used today to train in the same capacity. Has the accident rate come down as a result of the extra training hours now required for a private pilot licence or multi rating? I doubt it.

I do appreciate the input though.

And Colonel, if you have a multi trainer and think you can train me to pass a flight test in a couple or three days, PM me a rate. I can zip out there in the Mooney about June 2nd or 3rd.

1000 HP

[Colonel Sanders]

if you have a multi trainer

Sorry, I'm not going to do multi ratings on either
the Beech 18 or the 421 or the Twin Bonanza -
and I don't have the time to do it, either!

If I had a Seminole or Duchess or Apache or TwinCo,
I'm pretty sure that with your hands and feet we
could fly one day, and you could do the test the
next - with all due respect to the junior instructors
here.

The key is to get the POH/AFM ahead of time, and
to know the systems/procedures/speeds before
you show up.

Oh yeah, there's a little generic dance that you have
to memorize and perform when an engine fails.
That's about it, really.

Couple of pubs for you to read:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/EN/TP1 ... 11575E.pdf
http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/EN/TP2 ... TP219E.pdf

If you do nothing else, memorize this before you show up:

Engine Failure (Cruise Flight)

In the absence of a procedure in the POH/AFM, these steps should be taken. Note that BOLDFACE denotes memory items. With the majority of emergencies, certain procedures must be performed immediately from memory. Students should be made aware of such items during simulation on an engine failure.

CONTROL yaw, roll, airspeed
POWER mixture, propellers, throttles
DRAG confirm landing gear up, flaps up
IDENTIFY failed engine
VERIFY failed engine by reducing throttle of suspected failed engine
CAUSE CHECK if time and altitude permit, attempt to assess and correct
problem using appropriate checklist. Then advance
throttle to determine if engine is developing power.
FEATHER propeller on the failed engine
SECURE complete the “Engine Failure in Flight” checklist and monitor the operating engine and its related systems

Proceed to the nearest suitable airport, taking into consideration the facilities, surface wind, elevation, obstacles and the seriousness of the emergency.

People like to make multi-engine flying a lot more complicated than it really is.

[teh1pilot]

1000 HP...

My statements were based purely off the assumption you were on the 150/172 > ME route... my apologies. In light of the new information....I can't see why it can't be done in the time you want. Just sit down with the CFI, discuss your concerns and that you want it done ASAP. He'll put you with the best instructor that's comfortable enough with the plane to give you an accelerated program....

[Cat Driver]

For someone that owns a Mooney following C.S.'s outline any more than five hours of airplane flight time is training two people.

The student and the instructor.

[1000 HP]

Thanks for the info.

It really funny that I have emailed 4 flying schools, and only Fort McMurray has bothered to reply to me so far. Perhaps they have lots of students or maybe I am just impatient eh? An old friend of mine has a duchess and is willing to do it. It's only a short commute from Lloyd with the Mooney.

I just hated that Philippine crash video. I remember that when it came out...

[Cat Driver]

He'll put you with the best instructor that's comfortable enough with the plane to give you an accelerated program....

You are saying there are multi engine instructors who are not comfortable with the twins they are teaching on?

And the schools now have two training programs, one program that has the student fly unnecessary hours.

Another program that is accelerated and the student only fly's the hours the student needs?

[1000 HP]

1000 HP...

My statements were based purely off the assumption you were on the 150/172 > ME route... my apologies. In light of the new information....I can't see why it can't be done in the time you want. Just sit down with the CFI, discuss your concerns and that you want it done ASAP. He'll put you with the best instructor that's comfortable enough with the plane to give you an accelerated program....

No worries. I'm always learning something new and that's a good thing. I don't think I am smarter than the next guy, and have proven myself correct on numerous occasions

[Colonel Sanders]

I just hated that Philippine crash video

Learning factor of Intensity.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... s-5483.htm

(e) INTENSITY — Use dramatic, realistic or unexpected things, as they are long remembered.

[teh1pilot]

He'll put you with the best instructor that's comfortable enough with the plane to give you an accelerated program....

You are saying there are multi engine instructors who are not comfortable with the twins they are teaching on?

And the schools now have two training programs, one program that has the student fly unnecessary hours.

Another program that is accelerated and the student only fly's the hours the student needs?

Not what I meant. I simply meant that there are instructors teaching Multi, and then there are Instructors that have been teaching the Multi Engine syllabus long enough that they are comfortable to sign off a student for a flight test through an accelerated program.

[Cat Driver]

Yes, I am aware that there are instructors teaching multi who do not have the experience required to be comfortable with their product.

Do the schools give a reduced rate for the instructors who need more time to teach the student, or is it just the luck of the draw for the people paying for the instruction?

As to the accelerated time frame when teaching on multi engine airplanes.

For the type rating on the PBY I required a minimum of 50 take off's and landings on the water.

The fifty take offs and landings were done in 2.5 hours of air time.

It can be done in a shorter time frame but 2.5 hours allowed for easy circuits.

[captcrunch2013]

I get the distinct impression that 1000hp is fishing for bites and got plenty.

As C. Sander's says, its a great example of the law of intensity.

I recall one notorious instructor, used to conduct twin training, type ratings for those who could not find an instructor.
Was known for "the law of intensity" style of training, that involved pulling engines after takeoff while the gear was still down, and lots of single engine training at any stage of a circuit.

He also did a number of long ocean flights and regularly ran out of fuel on one engine, details I did not hear about until years after I got a call in the early hours that he was on his way back from a south pacific country and could I get the engineer out to check the funny fuel flow indications of the left engine.

Engineer called me back after he shone his flashlight in and observed that the tank was bone dry.
Turned out he regularly would land with insufficient fuel to do a missed approach and landing.

Looking back, he had a rather higher than normal probability of an accident and eventually, he made "mistake"
and that mistake took the lives of 12 people including himself.

Prior to his tragic flight, he ended with a minor part in a Hollywood movie and thats another story.

[BushmanNWT]

[Colonel Sanders]

Re-reading this thread, once again it strikes me
how unashamedly inefficient civilian flight training
is in Canada (and, I hasten to add, other places).

I remember a couple weeks back, watching a student
at an FTU in a little twin with the engines running, with
his head down as he ran through a checklist that I am
sure was pages and pages and pages long ...

Six and a half bucks a minute. And I'm sure you guys
in the big cities with the white shirts and gold bars are
paying much, much more than that. For a little training
twin with 4 cyl engines on each side.

Remember, that engine time running on the ground
isn't a cost for the FTU, which only counts air time
towards maintenance. But you pay for flight time.

Again, there is precious little motivation for flight training
to be efficient and effective. That's not in the FTU's interest,
and TC doesn't care - in fact, it pushes very hard for high
flight times - which leaves the poor, uninformed customer
paying sky-high prices for, well ...

Anyways. I must have said "with all due respect" at least
three times in this thread. Time for a little (more overt)
homage to the master of "all due respect":

[Big Pistons Forever]

Yup this guy should have no problem doing his Multi in 5 hours. He must be great because he is a Mooney Pilot


TSB Identification: CEN13CA083
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 02, 2012 in Durango, CO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/10/2013
Aircraft: MOONEY AIRPLANE CO INC M20TN, registration: N562BG
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.
The airplane bounced twice during landing. The pilot said that after the second bounce, he added full throttle for a go-around and that the airplane began to drift to the left side of the runway centerline. Just as the airplane began to climb, the pilot retracted the landing gear and flaps, and the nose of the airplane immediately pitched up. The right wingtip struck the runway surface, and the airplane veered sharply to the right and impacted terrain on the right side of the runway. The impact resulted in the collapse of the landing gear and substantial damage to the engine mount, firewall, fuselage, and horizontal stabilizer. The pilot reported that there was no mechanical malfunction or failure and that he just failed to maintain control of the airplane during the landing.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s improper recovery from a bounced landing, and his failure to maintain airplane control during the go-around maneuver.



A Multi rating in 5 hours means a maximum of 4.3 hours of training because your flight test will be at least 0.7.

My personal experience has been that the minimum time to fully cover all you need to know how to properly and safely fly a twin will take a minimum of 6 hours plus the ride. I don't train to "pass the ride" I train to competency which means more than just the minimum to pass the flight test.

The biggest determinate in training time is the amount of work the student wants to put into the training. I find there is a high correlation between the guys who want it done quick and cheap and lack of desire to make the effort to learn and practice their emergency drills, learn the theory and knowledge or work hard to get the most out of every expensive minute in the aircraft.

That been said there is a lot of crappy ME instructing out there by people who have no business teaching the Multi Rating. By the time you get to the Multi rating you should have a good idea of what good and not so good instructing looks like so go do your due diligence and ask some skill testing questions like.

1) How much multi time does my instructor have ?

2) How many students has he trained for the Multi rating and did any fail the ride ?

3) Does he have any experience flying twins outside of instructing at a FTU ?

4) What operational restrictions does the FTU have on ME instructing ( ie X wind limits, ceiling and vis limits)

I feel for people just starting out learning how to fly as you won't have the experience to know when you are being ripped off, but by the time you hit the advanced ratings if you the school takes you for a ride IMO you own part of the process and did not do your part to be an informed consumer of a service provided by a flying school.....

[photofly]

1) How much multi time does my instructor have ?

2) How many students has he trained for the Multi rating and did any fail the ride ?

Suppose the answers are 1) minimal and 2) you're the first. What are you going to do?

[Big Pistons Forever]

1) How much multi time does my instructor have ?

2) How many students has he trained for the Multi rating and did any fail the ride ?

Suppose the answers are 1) minimal and 2) you're the first. What are you going to do?

Ummm how about go to another school .........

[ahramin]

I did my multi rating on a turbocharged Seneca in 5 hours. No Mooney time beforehand though so your mileage may vary .

[Shiny Side Up]

Remember, that engine time running on the ground
isn't a cost for the FTU, which only counts air time
towards maintenance. But you pay for flight time.

Not sure how people always figure that ground time doesn't cost anything. If those props are a turnin', that fuel's a burnin'.

I remember a couple weeks back, watching a student
at an FTU in a little twin with the engines running, with
his head down as he ran through a checklist that I am
sure was pages and pages and pages long ...

The big thing usually is that we got someone trying to fly a twin when they probably can just barely handle a single. There's something to be said for stepping up, but many schools would rather beat the crap out of a poor twin and pump kids through, and I hate to say it, the kids sign up to be pumped through. All in all is ugly from all ends. People make a lot of noise about checklists around here, but I've never had any problems using one, and can get through several pages in a short time and not miss anything. If you're in a twin and can't get it started up in a reasonable ammmmount of time, you probably shouldn't be taking multi training in the first place. Personally I'd like to test every student with some pegs and holes and time them to see how quickly they can solve the problem and if they're too slow, well then you can't fly airplanes, but that would be somewhat politically incorrect.

Again, there is precious little motivation for flight training
to be efficient and effective. That's not in the FTU's interest,
and TC doesn't care - in fact, it pushes very hard for high
flight times - which leaves the poor, uninformed customer
paying sky-high prices for, well ...

Students don't care either, or the problem would solve itself.

I feel for people just starting out learning how to fly as you won't have the experience to know when you are being ripped off, but by the time you hit the advanced ratings if you the school takes you for a ride IMO you own part of the process and did not do your part to be an informed consumer of a service provided by a flying school.....

+1

Multi training is one of those particular areas where customers especially shop by what can I get now. Consequently few places seem to specialize in it, no one really seems to care a lot about the quality of the service. What tend to happen is a lot of schools have only one twin and when it has to go in the shop, their multi clientele disappear wherever the next available twin is.

...and with all due respect, I've found that being a "mooney guy" isn't necessarily a point in your favour.

[Colonel Sanders]

If those props are a turnin', that fuel's a burnin'.

That's a misleading statement. On the ground, each engine is
maybe burning 2 gph vs the 20 gph it will burn during takeoff/climbout
(assuming 200hp 4 cyl engine on each side).

Also, that ground time doesn't count towards very expensive
scheduled maintenance, which is based on air time only.

being a "mooney guy" isn't necessarily a point in your favour.

Another misleading statement. You are hinting that most
Mooney pilots are incompetent and unable to learn. While
that might be true of some percentage of pilots on any type,
it is a fact that prior experience to advanced systems such
as retractable gear, constant speed prop, fuel injection,
cowl flaps, etc is a HUGE advantage for someone going
into a twin. And it doesn't matter if it's a Mooney, a
Bonanza a Comanche, a TBM-700 or a PC-12.

I think you are asserting that students that come from
a 172 with no exposure to advanced systems, take less
time to learn to fly a twin. Is that really true, in your
experience? I would be willing to wager that someone
with 1000 hrs on any of Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/TBM-700
would adapt MUCH faster to a little training twin, than
someone with 100TT on a 172.

And as far as the usual lengthy FTU checklists go ... if the
student is only flying VFR, does he really need to spend
10 minutes on the ground - at 6.5 dollars per minute -
setting up all the nav radios, and playing with the HSI and
RMI, and tuning and identifying all of the local navaids
as per the FTU multi-engine checklist?

Could he still fly VFR with the DME turned off? The ADF?
The VORs?

[photofly]

1) How much multi time does my instructor have ?

2) How many students has he trained for the Multi rating and did any fail the ride ?

Suppose the answers are 1) minimal and 2) you're the first. What are you going to do?

Ummm how about go to another school .........

It's an absolute certainty that every ME instructor - even the very best and most experienced of them - had a first paying student somewhere. Clearly your advice makes not the slightest bit of sense.

[Shiny Side Up]

If those props are a turnin', that fuel's a burnin'.

That's a misleading statement. On the ground, each engine is
maybe burning 2 gph vs the 20 gph it will burn during takeoff/climbout
(assuming 200hp 4 cyl engine on each side).

Also, that ground time doesn't count towards very expensive
scheduled maintenance, which is based on air time only.

It was no more of a misleading statement than the idea that it costs no money. Can we agree that it costs some money while its running on the ground? One should also note that its when its on the ground is the only time its causing wear and tear on the wheels, brakes and oleos, you're causing the most ammount of wear on the prop - especially since its on the ground we're going through the excersise of differential power while manuvering. Even though this stuff doesn't count time wise towards scheduled maintenance, it still costs you in regular maintenance and up keep.

Another misleading statement. You are hinting that most
Mooney pilots are incompetent and unable to learn.

I thought I was stating it outright. I'll try to be more clear in the future. I should be more specific though, usually guys who brand themselves as a "mooney guy" you got to be wary of. Very similar to guys who pride themselves on being "low wing only" pilots. Strange stuff.

it is a fact that prior experience to advanced systems such
as retractable gear, constant speed prop, fuel injection,
cowl flaps, etc is a HUGE advantage for someone going
into a twin.


I think you are asserting that students that come from
a 172 with no exposure to advanced systems, take less
time to learn to fly a twin. Is that really true, in your
experience?

Hold on now, that's not what I was saying. I will say that a guy who has "experience" on a mooney or other similar complex type doesn't always have an advantage over the guy who hasn't. How well someone can learn stuff is irrelevant to the type of airplane he's been flying. Case in point: A little while back, there was a lot of guys crashing Piper Malibus. Big stink over how the engine should be run. After pouring over all of the accident reports, the FAA concluded that there was nothing wrong with the airplane or the engine, but rather pilots needed better training. You would think that the guy flying the advanced airplane would have a leg up, but in my experience, many, if not most of these guys, don't advance any farther in their flying ability or skills, depsite the airplane trying to improve them, than when they were the guy in the 172. Just because you fly a complex type, doesn't mean you're good at flying complex types. Usually the only thing guys have learned to do with a complex type is operate a gear lever - and sometimes not even do that well.

That's not to say that there aren't good sticks flying these things, but there really is no bar to entry for flying one, so one can't assume that the airplane has trained the pilot.

And as far as the usual lengthy FTU checklists go ... if the
student is only flying VFR, does he really need to spend
10 minutes on the ground - at 6.5 dollars per minute -
setting up all the nav radios, and playing with the HSI and
RMI, and tuning and identifying all of the local navaids
as per the FTU multi-engine checklist?

Could he still fly VFR with the DME turned off? The ADF?
The VORs?

Oh he probably could, but I wouldn't always blame the school for that tendancy. If one hasn't figured that stuff out by now, to use as necessary, then that time wasting is probably self inflicted. I know guys who do this who have their own airplanes. There's all sorts out there.

[whoop_whoop]

IMHO someone describing themselves as a Mooney pilot is no different than someone saying they're a 737 pilot or an airbus pilot. And someone who flies a Mooney will probably train faster on a multi than someone who is coming from a basic single.

I did a multi IFR renewal earlier this year after my last IFR ride was in 2008. After telling them my experience level, they scheduled me for 5 hours sim, followed by 3-5 airplane flights at 1.5 hrs each :O I got lucky and flew 1 sim session, then two flights in the airplane (which I had never flown before) and then the ride. It's not complicated stuff...get the documents ahead of time, memorize the checklist and then get in the plane and prove you know what you're doing!!

I really find the flight training model messed up. Why can't/won't schools pay enough to attract experienced drivers to teach new people the ropes.