Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

MEI Questions

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Immune, if you follow the program you Instructor has, you should do fine.

IMHO teaching in a light twin will kill you quicker than any other airplane. It is normally an underpowered trainer with a student of sometimes unknown ability. Plus, you are maneuvering low and slow and you will be dealing with asymmetrical thrust low and slow.

1. As always - know your aircraft. You cannot teach an aircraft if you do not know that aircraft. With each type, model, engine mfgr, engine model, factory or after market modification you could have a different animal and can and may be operated differently depending on many factors. This is where you dig into the aircraft manual(s) and talk to the mechanics and other pilots.

2. Always expect your student will do something you do not want them to do. In a twin (unlike a single engine trainer) the CG may not put you nose down during a stall (or just send you in a flat spin) especially if you have some one ride in the back to watch. (In a light twin some one in the back watching primary training- NEVER a good idea IMHO).

3. With bigger aircraft you need to know: In a turn on the ground - Will the tail clear if the wing tips do? Some aircraft have longer wings (or a longer tail) – find out. It could save you a dinged aircraft and some money.

4. In any multi-engine aircraft I have found that when an engine quits sometimes either too much gear or too much flaps will kill you. If you have an aircraft with long gear that create too much drag or if the flaps are too large for the single engine power you may have to retract the gear or reduce the flaps. This may not matter unless you are above a certain airspeed, weight, or temperature. Any good aircraft check out could show you the specific flight abilities of that aircraft. But keep in mind that if the aircraft is not performing – you may have missed something – think gear – flaps – cowl flaps –power setting - Prop pitch - etc.
 
Last edited:
In a twin (unlike a single engine trainer) the CG may not put you nose down during a stall (or just send you in a flat spin) especially if you have some one ride in the back to watch

Can you give an example model of twin aircraft which will not recover a stall if it is within CG limits.
 
2. Always expect your student will do something you do not want them to do. In a twin (unlike a single engine trainer) the CG may not put you nose down during a stall (or just send you in a flat spin) especially if you have some one ride in the back to watch. (In a light twin some one in the back watching primary training- NEVER a good idea IMHO).

Not true in a Seneca II. 2 people up front will require 50-100 lbs of ballast in the rear luggage area.

....or another student in the back...which I find is a VERY good idea IMHO, since we need ballast anyway and that kid will get more than his money's worth out of watching that lesson and learning from his flying partner's mistakes.

Kinda like getting two lessons for the price of one and it makes things easier on the instructor...since the student that has already back-seated has seen the maneuvers before strapping himself into the left seat, I only have to repeat myself 20 times per day instead of 25 or 30. :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone,

Now, does anyone know the BE-95 like the back of their hand?

Yes, I have a POH/PIM but there are little things those dont tell you only experience does.

Who else has some good info?

:D
 
Can you give an example model of twin aircraft which will not recover a stall if it is within CG limits.

Off hand, no. I do recall reading accident reports many years ago about flat spin light twin fatalities in training. And I recall a story about a training sesson that went badly and the aircraft stalled flat so the Instructor reached back and pulled the student watching from the back into the front seat to recover from the stall. Sorry too many years and moves to keep copies.
 
Not true in a Seneca II. 2 people up front will require 50-100 lbs of ballast in the rear luggage area.

The Seneca II was never meant to be a primary trainer IMHO. There is a balance problem but the II will climb out on one engine when others will not. Be careful with the extra 200 pounds (one person) of dead weight if you have to climb out on one. I know of a training crash that had an observer. When the engine quit on go around the student almost stalled the twin, the Instructor took over (too late) advanced the throttle and the second engine just took them to the scene of the crash. Had the observer not been there they may have climbed out or may not. I like to err to the safety side. IMHO too many schools "sell" the idea of watching to reduce their training time. I agree watching is a good training method but not in a light twin.

I am not the end all to be all in training. I have my opinions like every one has. I have a "want to live a long time" desire and have been at the outer edge of the line too many times to keep doing it. I have been in situations that later I was told "the aircraft is not suppose to be able to do that whatever bad thing" but it did and the aircraft doesn't always follow the book. In Light twin training - be very careful.
 
Last edited:
The Seneca II was never meant to be a primary trainer IMHO. There is a balance problem but the II will climb out on one engine when others will not. Be careful with the extra 200 pounds (one person) of dead weight if you have to climb out on one. I know of a training crash that had an observer. When the engine quit on go around the student almost stalled the twin, the Instructor took over (too late) advanced the throttle and the second engine just took them to the scene of the crash. Had the observer not been there they may have climbed out or may not. I like to err to the safety side. IMHO too many schools "sell" the idea of watching to reduce their training time. I agree watching is a good training method but not in a light twin.

I am not the end all to be all in training. I have my opinions like every one has. I have a "want to live a long time" desire and have been at the outer edge of the line too many times to keep doing it. I have been in situations that later I was told "the aircraft is not suppose to be able to do that whatever bad thing" but it did and the aircraft doesn't always follow the book. In Light twin training - be very careful.

I agree that the PA34 wasn't meant to be a trainer, but I've come around to really liking them. You won't find a light twin that is more stable when flying on a single engine, and I really like that fact that I can still climb on one engine all the way up to 8 or even 10K on a single engine during the hot summers in Phoenix.

Reference single engine go-arounds. We do them all of the time. They are required for the UK-CAA CPL skills test and the Seneca handles them very nicely if properly executed, even in the heat and more often than not with a back seat passenger. It's also very forgiving and tame if the student isn't perfect with the rudder pedals...of course, I'm always right there to prevent a true test of the aircraft's forgiving nature....or lack thereof.

I remember reading the article of which you speak. It was written by an instructor who was doing some work with a student in a Beech Travelair when they entered a spin. The instructor tried everything under the sun to get that aircraft out of the spin, but failed. The aircraft spun to the ground killing the student(IIRC), but the instructor survived to write a fascinating article. It was a goood read and a real eye-opener. I read it on the recommendation of the DPE with which I took my MEI ride. If I can find it, I'll post a link.

EDIT: Here it is.
 
Last edited:
In a few months time, every multiengine trainer available for rent at KVNY crashed. Different instructors, different students, most pilot error, and the one mechanical, that pilot shoulda rejected the aircraft.

Light twin training is not for the complacent, sloppy, or careless, unless you are really lucky.
 
On this I can agree I think some of your other statements though are bit disingenuous on the verge of fear mongering.

Just go back to the NTSB accident reports. Keep reading, from what I have read and lived through I think what I said is not "fear mongering". When you read the reports keep a record of how may times the pilots lived. It will be a short list.

Most MEI's are young pilots tring to fill up their logbook. They can and do press safety/legality for an extra hour of time logged or a few more bucks.

Go read 50 or so light twin training accident reports and decide for your self.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top