accelerated multi

[Kream926]

has anyone done one of them accelerated multi training?
how was is and did it make you a competent multi pilot? a few people at the school im at tell that its a bad idea but i just think they are trying to get more money outta me. any suggestions?

 

[aucfi]

Did it with ATP last July.

Got the rating and thats about it. You train for the check ride, not to be a competent multi pilot.

au

 

[minitour]

I've got 3.9 incl' the 1.0 checkride.

Am I competent as a multi pilot? Probably not...but I have the paper.

As mentioned before, I was trained for the checkride. Before I'm insurable in a twin, I'm sure I'll be competent. I'll probably need 15-20 more dual ME before I can solo a twin. The nice thing is it can all be PIC instead of just dual recieved.

Worth it? Yes and no.

-mini

 

[apcooper]

Do you think the average ME rated pilot could handle an engine failure at 50 ft after takeoff? Would he know that the best thing to do if this happened in Aspen in the summer would be to pull the power on the good engine back a bit and land on the best real estate ahead just like a single? Just curious to know!!

 

[Lead Sled]

Do you think the average ME rated pilot could handle an engine failure at 50 ft after takeoff? Would he know that the best thing to do if this happened in Aspen in the summer would be to pull the power on the good engine back a bit and land on the best real estate ahead just like a single? Just curious to know!!

Well, there are a couple of big considerations here...

The problem with piston twins is that they all have two engines because they need two engines and under certain conditions they are capable of limited controlled flight on one engine. Even the best performing piston-twin's single-engine performance capabilities vary from anemic to non-existant.

Many normally aspirated twins have a single-engine service ceiling of 5000’ or less (Some a lot less.) What’s going to happen when you load the airplane up to maximum gross takeoff weight and attempt a takeoff at an airport, say in Utah or Colorado (4,000’+ MSL) on a hot summer day when the density altitude is in the neighborhood of say 8500’? If you lose an engine under those conditions, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going to happen next.

This is where the turbocharged twins make a lot of sense – out west where there are many high elevation airports. Many of them have single-engine service ceilings in the mid-teens. This doesn't mean that you can expect them to climb with very much enthusiasm on one engine; but thay can usually manage some climb and maintain an altitude once they've reached it. (This is a good thing in the event that you are flying IFR in the mountains - some of those MEAs can be pretty "tall".) In other words, depending upon the airplane you're flying and your load, your question might very well be mute.

The next thing to talk about is what do you mean by the "average" pilot? If you're talking about the average commercially flown light twin and flown by the average charter pilot, I doubt if there would be much of an issue. Most of those guys seem to be pretty sharp, fly enough to keep the rust from forming and they are subject to recurrent training and checkrides every 6 months. Those are the guys that you wouldn't think would have a lot of problems. Then there's the average non-professionally flown twin flown by wealthy individuals, doctors, and the like. IF they have been dilligent in keeping current and have received proper and adequate recurrent training then they probably wouldn't have too much of a problem either. Unfortunately, there are those guys who have the money to afford their "trophy twin", but neither the time nor the interest to do the things necessary to be proficient in it.

'Sled