MEI Questions

[sqwkvfr]

The Seneca II does fine with two up front and no one in the rear. I flew many hours in the Seneca II and III with two on board in the front seats, always within CG.

As for single engine missed approaches in them, no. I once told an FAA inspector "no" when he insisted on doing them during a 135 checkride in the airplane. He told me he'd fail me for refusing to do one. I told him he didn't have a legal leg to stand on, and asked him if he'd like to get out now, or wait until we got back to the airport. He grumbled and said carry on...we did the ride without the missed approach on one (which he can't require in a Part 23 airplane...it's not certified to do so or required to be able to do it).

I did the same thing during a checkride in a King Air 90, and warned the examiner/chief pilot not to pull the engine. He did it anway, and despite having been warned that he wouldn't get the engine back if he pulled it, he gave it a shot. When he learned I was setting up to put the airplane in a field because that was the only option at the time, he demanded, then begged for the power...and was in tears before I let him have it back.

Ride passed...chief pilot educated.

I'd have given him more of a pass if he hadn't tried to insist he'd have done the single engine missed out of a high density altitude airport in the mountains, with passengers on board...in front of the company general manager.

In a light twin like a Seneca II or a Cessna 310, if a missed is required, I won't do it. I'll land between the runways, on a taxiway, after or before the problematic traffic etc...and I'd never teach a student to develop the mentality of taking one around on one engine, either. Bad, bad move.

Like I said, it is required for the CPL skills test conducted by examiners for the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority per CAA Standards Document Three. (page 10, second paragraph)

It is done FAR differently than a normal go-around.

The technique is very effective, very safe, and the PA34 is plenty capable....even with an integrated JAA student at the controls.

Re: The weight and balance; I've never been within CG on a Seneca II without ballast or a back seat passenger with either 80 or 100 gallons on board.....I probably weigh more than you, but students have to use ballast on their skills tests as well, and those are conducted with someone else sitting in the cockpit with the student.

 

[avbug]

The Seneca II's and III's I flew were configured for ambulance aircraft, and were regularly flown with two up front and no one in the back...weight and balance calculated for every leg. It may have been the ambulance configuration that took care of it. I never flew one that wasn't configured that way.

The Seneca has one of the best single engine ceilings for light twins, and performs relatively well on one engine; we often were working at or above 8,000' on one engine.

That said, however, I refused then, and would refuse today, to do a go-around or missed approach on one. I don't really care what the euroweanies do.

 

[sqwkvfr]

That said, however, I refused then, and would refuse today, to do a go-around or missed approach on one. I don't really care what the euroweanies do.

I don't blame you. Had I not went to work for this company and been shown how to properly do them, I would have never done it, either.

I've been amazed at what I've learned working with the senior pilots and examiners at my company. One retired as a squadron commander in the RAF after 28 years flying a low-level nuclear deterrent bomber (I can never remember which one) and the another flew the Avro Vulcan (this particular gentleman has forgotten more about hwo to fly than I will probably ever know). I'm humbled every time I get the opportunity to fly what these guys and I learn something every time I sit in a debrief with one of my students after their skills test (CPL checkride). When they speak to me as an equal or collegue, I feel as if I am not worthy.

Anyhow, if I were to describe the single engine go-around method, I think that you might change your mind about it's safety. I do not, however, want to describe it here for fear that someone might try it without proper training.

I do want to re-iterate to anyone reading this that the single engine go-around tested by the UK authorities and taught by UK FTOs is very different from a normal go-around and you most likely won't be able to guess how its done. I don't recommend trying one unless you've had proper training in it's technique, use and the correct circumstances for it's use.

Anyhow, I've got it in my bag of tricks...should it happen someday that I really need to pull it out, I can...in a safe and controlled manner.

 

[avbug]

Anyhow, if I were to describe the single engine go-around method, I think that you might change your mind about it's safety. I do not, however, want to describe it here for fear that someone might try it without proper training.

I'm perfectly well aware of how one may initiate a missed or go-around on one engine in a light twin. I've done it in light turboprops and piston aircraft...and yes, it can be done, but it really shouldn't in general practice. Further, should always consider that what has caused one engine to fail may cause the other to fail. Additionally, when one is configured for landing, it's really not the time in a light piston twin to go again.

I know how to do it, but it doesn't mean I consider doing it. With an engine out in a light twin, I'm stopping when I reach the runway environment, whether the runway is available, or not.

 

[sqwkvfr]

I'm perfectly well aware of how one may initiate a missed or go-around on one engine in a light twin. I've done it in light turboprops and piston aircraft...and yes, it can be done, but it really shouldn't in general practice.

There's no doubt about that....in IMC or even a low overcast, I would be disinclined to attempt one. In better weather, however, I wouldn't have a problem if conditions were right and the need grave enough, but then again, I've done them (or instructed or supervised a student doing them) hundreds of times.

The FAA does not require this training and I'm with you in that if the training doesn't require a single engine go-around, do not attempt it. I also wouldn't try it in a Seminole or anything else since I've never been instructed on the technique in any other aircraft.

I don't want to think that I was questioning your abilities, 'bug....I was speaking of others that might be reading our exchange and possibly getting ideas.

 

[avbug]

I understand where you're coming from. I think the context here is perhaps somewhat misplaced, because this site is almost exclusively frequented by those operating in the US. A similiar discussion on PPrune, for example, will likely yield an entirely different tack.

The FAA;s position with me in the past has been to push the issue, asking what I'd do if arriving at minimums and finding the runway occupied by another airplane, or an instruction to go around by the tower. My answer is always the same; the runway isn't the only place to land, and I know that immediately in front of me is crash rescue, an obstacle free area, and some semblance of order.

I can't say the same for the neighborhood off the end of the runway, or any of the surrounding areas on the attempted missed approach and return for landing.

On more than one occasion in the past, employers for whom I have operated have seen multiple engine failures. More recently, several failures within a very short time frame on a four engine airplane. Simply because one is still running doesn't mean it will stay that way for long.

I do understand where you're coming from. I've been in the position of having to teach or present or support certain policies or practices with which I didn't fully agree, but which were the approved and designated practices and techniques of an employer. In such cases, while I presented the material as advertised, I also allowed my own views on the subject to be known and advised the student to hear all sides of the story. I'm sure you do the same.

 

[AC560]

I would echo Avbug on this for the main reason of you just don't know once one engine goes off if the other isn't going to be right behind it. Especially given the overwhelming reason for engine failure is fuel starvation.

The trickiest part of twin instruction is teaching decision making not how you fly a twin.

[edit]Not that I don't agree and see where you are coming from as well sqwkvfr. Just making a general comment.

 

[JAFI]

The trickiest part of twin instruction is teaching decision making not how you fly a twin.

AC - you hit the nail on the head with that comment. IMHO with the quickie schools and the cookie cutter approach to flight training we do not spend enough time working on Decision Making Skills.

With a twin aircraft compared to a single engine, there is more than just one more engine to think about. I think Instructors should spend more time asking the student "what would you do in this case" to determine how the student is thinking to ensure the thought process is good and progressing with the learning how to fly the aircraft.


During a rating ride one of the big failure items is not being able to make a good decision. Remember the PTS states (and I will have to look for the correct quote, but) the success of the flight can never be in doubt. The applicant must demonstrate that THEY are in command of the aircraft not the Examiner/Inspector or (as I have seen) even the aircraft is more in command than the applicant. And part of being in command is making good decisions.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Judgment comes with experience. It's hard to teach and retain as it's very dynamic in nature. Judgment is the end result of a cumulation of knowledge and experience in a wide range of areas which come together to form a sound judgment call.

The rote procedures can be attained within a few hours and it seems like 10 hours (give or take) has become the magic number. One can learn how to fly the plane at a minimum skill level and rattle off a few memorized items and numbers within this time frame.

A temporary certificate has always been a license to learn.

Oh yeah, and I've seen the plane fly pilots rather than the other way around. It's this glazed over, frozen look of not knowing what to do.

 

[sqwkvfr]

I've seen the plane fly pilots rather than the other way around. It's this glazed over, frozen look of not knowing what to do.

A rap on the back of the head with a decent quality clipboard usually makes that go away pretty quickly.

 

[JAFI]

Amish, I agree that Judgement does come with experience. That does not mean that Instructors can't get the student started on the right road to good decision making. I have noticed that in the students I asked what they would do in a specific situation and we would discuss options - they are better prepared to have better judgement when they are on their own.

Flying the aircraft makes you the operator of a machine, on top of that, using good judgement makes you in command of the aircraft.