Additional Class Rating

[minitour]

Hey there y'all...got a pickle about this class rating shtuff.

I'll be finishing up my C-SEL, CFII and CFI while I'm out here, then I'm headin on home to add on the C-MEL.

A few questions.
1. Anywhere I can pick up a relatively inexpensive Seneca I POH?

2. I'll only have about 190 hours when I head home to do this (141 student). I'm adding the ME on as either 61 or 141 (depending on which is least expensive). Am I going to have problems with the examiner (less than 250TT)?

3. Do I need to do the dual xc's again (the 100nm day/night) and the solo xc (the "300" nm one)? I had assumed that since I had a Commercial license and was just adding a class rating that all I'd need to do is the PTS stuff (takeoffs/landings/approaches/OEI work/steep turns/stalls/slow flight/emergency procedures), but the instructor I talked to seemed pretty sure I had to do the cross countries. I'm not really adverse to doing that since it's not going to be a "climb, cruise, approach, land, repeat" but more of a training (lose an engine, etc) flight...plus it's XC toward the ATP, but if I can do some of that in a 152 with students paying for it...all the better.

4. Anything cool you can tell me about the Seneca I? How does it handle on one engine? Any non-precision approach tips (as far as leveling off at MDA, etc)? Cool stories?

Thanks all.

-mini

 

[avbug]

Mini,

The Seneca 1 is a fairly gutless airplane, which makes it a great multi training airplane. It has no bad habits, it's honest, and you'll like it.

If you know where you'll be training, I'd go right to the place and ask to make a xerox copy of the entire AFM right from the aircraft. Leave them a first born child to ensure you'll bring it back, and run to Kinkos copies.

The examiner should have no beef at all with your time and experience; no minimum total experience level exists to obtain a multi rating. So long as you can fly the airpalne and meet the practical test standards, you're set.

If you've already obtained your commercial certificate and met all the requirements, you don't need to do them again. You need only receive training in the multi engine airplane and a recommendation to take the practical test. If you're wanting instrument privileges in the airplane, you'll need to demonstrate instrument proficiency during the checkride, including single engine approaches.

 

[nosehair]

61.63(c) Additional class rating. Must have an endorsement...bla,bla,bla. In other words, you have to demonstrate proficiency to the PTS standards for that clas rating. If you can do it in 1 hour, you can do it. Your CFI friend is confusing 61.129(b) which is the requirements for an INITIAL Commercial ride in a multi, which does list specific times such as x/c in a multi.

 

[minitour]

Avbug,
Thanks for the heads up on the Seneca...I might just have to see if they'll let me do that with the AFM. I'm sure I could probably learn what I need to know for the check ride by spending some extra time at the school (which I could do) and just reading and taking notes out of that one, but I like the Kinkos idea too.

Av and nose:
Thanks for the help with the training requirements.

I'll be needing the instrument privileges to carry over, so I know I'll be needing to do an approach or two so I can demonstrate ability there. Glad to hear I don't need the xc's (which is what I was thinking) and such. Hoping to get it done in around 10 hours (with the check ride if possible) so I can minimize my time left in "training mode"

Thanks again

-mini

 

[MTpilot]

It's more fun if you make engine noises!

Mini, If you can, just go out and sit in the seneca and chair fly that sucker to death, it seems a little silly but it will save you money. Watch the gear switch.

 

[minitour]

Mini, If you can, just go out and sit in the seneca and chair fly that sucker to death, it seems a little silly but it will save you money. Watch the gear switch.

I'll have to remember the engine noises thing

 

[JAFI]

As I recall, the Seneca 1 you had to watch the aft CG when you loaded the aircraft up. We would limit the aircraft to only 5 people and not fill the 6th seat. But I could be mistaken, (it has been a while) you may want to check on that.

In multi training you always, always, always confirm the dead engine prior to shutting any fuel off. It can get real quiet, real quick. In a light twin you may not be able to:

climb or maintain altitude on one engine,
unfeather a prop (some times they just won't do it)
climb after desending single engine below 500 ft AGL (Always assume you will have to land below 500 feet)
Any one watching in the back is dead weight if you can't get the "dead" engine restarted.

Other than that it is a lot of fun...

JAFI

 

[MTpilot]

I had a student yank both mixtures once, talk about quiet.

 

[Lead Sled]

In multi training you always, always, always confirm the dead engine prior to shutting any fuel off. It can get real quiet, real quick. In a light twin you may not be able to:
climb or maintain altitude on one engine,
unfeather a prop (some times they just won't do it)
climb after desending single engine below 500 ft AGL (Always assume you will have to land below 500 feet)
Any one watching in the back is dead weight if you can't get the "dead" engine restarted.

I'm not a mechanic and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I fully expect some some of you guys who are or did...

Back in my multi-instructing days I attempted to feather the prop on one of the twins I was flying. It wouldn't - it continued to windmill. We started the engine back up and returned to the airport. When I talked to the mechanic about it he said that it really wasn't all that unusual. They ran the engine up on the ground and tried to feather it and sure enough it wouldn't do it. After that experience, I checked the feathering capability of each prop on the twins I was flying at the time - a C340 and a C421. The 340 also had a prop that wouldn't feather. It was pretty sobering to realize what would have happened if I actually had lost the engine that wouldn't go into feather in one of those airplanes. Piston twins have two engines because they need two engines.

Lesson to be learned? Never assume that something as basic to your survival as the feathering of a propellor is always going to happen as advertised. It pays to ask questions of a knowledgable mechanic.

'Sled

 

[Lead Sled]

In multi training you always, always, always confirm the dead engine prior to shutting any fuel off. It can get real quiet, real quick

In the good old days, it was very common (the FAA encouraged it) for instructors and examiners to pull the mixture or cut fuel right after liftoff and the accident rates reflected what often resulted.

I took my multi-engine checkride in an Aztec. The examiner was one of those guys who liked to shut off the fuel. When the time came to fail an engine he diverted my attention and reached down to the fuel levers between the seats. Thinking that he had his hand on the LH fuel lever, he shut off the fuel to the RH engine. Moments later, when the RH engine quit, I correctly went through the entire engine failure drill - including feathering the RH propellor. A few moments after the RH engine quit windmilling I witnessed, for the first time, a person (my examiner) having a combination stroke and heart attack - in his mind he had shut off the fuel to the left engine and I had just shutdown and feathered the right engine. Not a good position to be in at pattern altitude. You've never seen a guy start to sweat so profusely. Once he realized what he had done he settled back down and the rest of the checkride was pretty mellow.

For what it's worth, light-twin engine failures in the "real world" aren't anything like the carefully choreographed training exercises that most of you are familiar with. You all be careful ya hear.

'Sled

 

[minitour]

I had a student yank both mixtures once, talk about quiet.

like a church huh?

 

[avbug]

'Sled,

The mechanic who told you it's not uncommon for propellers to fail to feather wasn't apparently all that knowledgable, or perhaps he was just a very dangerous mechanic. If the prop wont' feather, the airplane should not be launched. It should be a grounding item, and failure to feather should be a very uncommon occurence.

In older times, we used feather pumps to drive the props into feather. What could occur in that case was that the prop would cycle through feather and right back out again. The secret in that case was to hold the feather button down, which kept the pump running and eventually it would drive back into the feather position. The problem with that was that if the oil was gone, such as was often the case, then the feather button did very little but draw amperage.

When a piston engine with a manually controled propeller is moved to the feather position, it's physically moving the pilot valve and dumping oil pressure to the prop, as well as moving the high pitch stops. The prop should be driven into feather. Depending on which propeller you had installed, spring pressure and/or nitrogen pressure should have driven the prop to feather. The fact that it didn't could have meant one of several things, but most likely the propeller needed servicing, adjustment was required on the governor or prop control linkage, or the governor itself was sludged up.

In any event, if the engine can't be feathered before the flight, then the flight shouldn't launch.

I warned off a check airman once about pulling the engine too low. I told him that if he did, I'd consider it a failure and treat it accordingly. I also told him that if we weren't right by the airport, he'd probably be making a forced landing. Toward the end of the checkride, he pulled an engine, low. When he saw what he wanted to see, he told me to restore power. I told him no, the engine was failed. He pushed and pushed, and I finally reminded him that he made the decision to shut it down, and he was going to have to live with that. He didn't take long to start sniveling and whining about being nervous, and then scared. I finally did restore the power and flew home, and to the best of my knowledge, he's never tried that little stunt again.

I passed, incidentally...though he certainly didn't.

 

[Lead Sled]

The fact that it didn't could have meant one of several things, but most likely the propeller needed servicing, adjustment was required on the governor or prop control linkage, or the governor itself was sludged up.

Avbug, you've spent time in northern Utah so you probably know the guy - he's a good mechanic. I should have been a bit more specific. He did mention exactly what you had mentioned - in each of our cases it was a rigging problem. What I gathered from talking with him was that is wan't enough to pull the prop into feather and wait for the RPM to drop off - a prop can do that and still not actually go all the way into feather.

Oh well, now you know one of the reasons for my personal motto - "Propellors are for boats."

'Sled

 

[JAFI]

A new chief pilot was getting a type ride in a SAAB 340 at 3 am (is there any other time to do a type ride in the airplane) The check airman decides to "fail" an engine on down wind so he slams the throttle to idle. Back then there were no gates like in the King Airs for the throttle stop and SAAB just had a small spring pushing up a small ball to stop the throttle from going into reverse. Well the check airman had pushed the throttle into almost full reverse on one engine (did I mention that they were at 1500 feet AGL) the aircraft rolled inverted. The new chief pilot froze, the FAA Inspector in the jump seat was not happy, and the check airman quickly shut down the engine and feathered the prop and rolled the aircraft up right very near the ground. The type ride was stoped for the night and the company went to using a simulator for future type rides. True story.

Got to love multi engine checkrides in the airplane....

JAFI

 

[avbug]

'Sled,


I probably do know him, or at least of him, though there are a few wrenches up in that area that a lot of folks use, that really ought to be in the lockup. I know one that's killed several folks so far, and seems to be free to do it again, and again, and again...

It should be enough to pull the propeller lever to the feather position. Nothing more should be needed. If one is carrying a lot of power at the time it may be a little hard on the prop, but it should still feather. If one has retarded the throttle to idle and then feathers, the prop should always go into feather.

If it doesn't, it's a mechanical problem. The propeller should never fail to feather. I have seen them do this, but more often, fail to come back out of feather. That's where a feathering accumulator pays off, and makes a big difference. I've had the same problem on radial engine aircraft, turboprops, and horizontally opposed piston airplanes.

I dunno about props are for boats; they do offer a number of advantages that a jet doesn't have, including the ability to pull a turbopropto idle and enjoy the braking action in flight, and a few are darn near as fast as or faster than a turbojet (such as the Piaggio Avanti). A nick in a prop is a whole lot easier and less expensive to address than a nick, chip, or crack in a compressor or power turbine blade. An added benifit is that when a lineman goes up a turbojet intake, all one gets are surges and bangs from a compressor stall. That could be anything going on...but when a lineman gets stuck in your propeller arc, there's no doubt as to the cause. And as an added benifit, it's self-clearing, and if you carry enough power, darn near self cleaning, too.

Let's see a cuisinart do that!

 

[lawfly]

The Seneca I is similar in cockpit/panel layout and appearance to the PA-28R-200 (Piper Arrow) of its day. If you have any time in the Arrow (I was instructing in the Arrow when I 1st flew the Seneca) you'll see what I mean. It's a good multi trainer. As with all light twins, not much single engine performance. For thrills, read up (if you haven't already) on what is and isn't required of light twins, performance-wise, when an engine fails. Even at well under gross, you'll notice the difference in SE performance (i.e., ROC) on cold days vs. hot days, if you have occasion to do SE work in the airplane in winter and in summer. It is possible to demo the difference between published Vyse/blue line, which is a gross weight speed, and Vyse for a given weight, if you will. I recall my ATP examiner (did Commercial multi add-on in Seneca I, and also did initial ATP in Seneca I) demo'd how the lighter than gross weight airplane climbed faster SE at several knots below blue line, and SE performance wasn't too bad on that cold day at that lower speed. Now, that was with zero thrust, rather than fully feathered, if I remember correctly, so that's a factor, too. But still instructional on weight to Vyse relationship. Could go on, but enough of that. It's a good training airplane. The later turbocharged and higher horsepower (220 hp ? starting with III, I think; II is 200hp turbocharged) versions are decent transportation machines for unpressurized piston twins. Oh, I bought a standard POH and studied it before I took the course; I think the course provider sent it to me. One bit of trivia: I think it has a max landing weight of 4,000, vs. max takeoff weight of 4,200 lbs, for the standard airplane. Check me on that. Good question for oral.

 

[dmspilot00]

Mini... let me guess, are you flying the Seneca at New Castle (UCP)? Just curious! Also how do you have a commercial with 170 hours?

 

[minitour]

Mini... let me guess, are you flying the Seneca at New Castle (UCP)? Just curious! Also how do you have a commercial with 170 hours?

It's a possibility...nothing's set in stone right now...it's still possible to get it done out here if I do it as a pt 61 add on (proficiency) rather than the 10 hour part 141 add-on. Either way, I'm out of here Thursday evening at the latest (looks like Wednesday evening).

Did the CPL part 141. It's a shortened program out here. The syllabus is only 70 training hours and they sign you off...sort of So...if you did it all out here, you could be a commercial pilot at 146 hours [38pvt + 38ira + 70cse on their syllabi(sp?)].

It's pretty cool that you could be a -II at 161 and CFI at 165 if you bust your balls and they can get you through. Toss in the CMEL at 10 hours and you're done at 175...unless you add the MEI...then it's 190 (still not too bad)...the hard part is getting them to fly you.

-mini

 

[dmspilot00]

It's a possibility...nothing's set in stone right now...

I don't know what UCP's planes are like, but Marty, the FBO owner and DE, is great, I took my private checkride with him.

 

[minitour]

I don't know what UCP's planes are like, but Marty, the FBO owner and DE, is great, I took my private checkride with him.

How was his oral?

The flight I usually don't get too worried and worked up over...it's the oral.

I don't like drawing out electrical systems and I kinda get flighty (FOI thing ) after about an hour or an hour and a half of talking about trivial stuff...

-mini