How would you change the multiengine checkride?

[unsafervguy]

The big thing I would makes is no aircraft with counter rotating props for the test.

clip4 i disagree with you on a lot of things, but you are spot on here! seminoles make terrible multi trainers, they are just too forgiving with respect to VMC. I had very heated discussion with a instructor when I was assistant cheif at a flight school, because all he had ever been flying was c/r light twins he had no issue with taking it right to, and slightly into VMC. I informed him, " you do that in a baron or a twin commache and you will be dead". the irony is the cheif pilot of that school died in a VCM spin in a baron a couple of years later.

 

[flyingron]

Maybe we should let pilots take their multiride in technically advanced single-engine aircraft.

 

[MauleSkinner]

clip4 i disagree with you on a lot of things, but you are spot on here! seminoles make terrible multi trainers, they are just too forgiving with respect to VMC. I had very heated discussion with a instructor when I was assistant cheif at a flight school, because all he had ever been flying was c/r light twins he had no issue with taking it right to, and slightly into VMC. I informed him, " you do that in a baron or a twin commache and you will be dead". the irony is the cheif pilot of that school died in a VCM spin in a baron a couple of years later.

That has nothing to do with CR props…it’s the configuration of the tail and what it does when you get beyond Vmc.

which is, again, one of the reasons that the Vmc demo is negative training.

 

[Clip4]

That has nothing to do with CR props…it’s the configuration of the tail and what it does when you get beyond Vmc.

which is, again, one of the reasons that the Vmc demo is negative training.

It’s not perfect, but it’s really all we got absent an advanced sim requirement.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It’s not perfect, but it’s really all we got absent an advanced sim requirement.

What’s all we got?

 

[Clip4]

What’s all we got?

Vmc demo.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Vmc demo.

So teaching people to fly at a speed they shouldn’t be flying anywhere near (negative training) to show them a watered-down aerodynamic result that won’t happen outside of airplanes specifically designed to water them down (negative training) and teach a reaction that doesn’t get enough practice to be viable in real life and therefore give a false confidence in the pilot’s abilities (negative training) is somehow important to do?

and let’s not forget that even in the airplanes that aren’t designed to water down the aerodynamic reaction, the FAA recommends a technique that gives the watered-down reaction.

 

[nosehair]

Engine cuts right after lift-off. That's where the killing accidents happen. And don't use the "too dangerous" excuse.
We did it in the Army. The check ride was going to be an engine cut in one of three places: about 10 knots before rotation speed (Baron B-55) or just after lift-off with wheels down, or right after wheels up.
We never had accidents, because (wait for it)...we trained.
Engine failure in the critical rotation speed area is the most dangerous part of light twin flying and that is the area that needs the .most training and testing.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Engine cuts right after lift-off. That's where the killing accidents happen. And don't use the "too dangerous" excuse.
We did it in the Army. The check ride was going to be an engine cut in one of three places: about 10 knots before rotation speed (Baron B-55) or just after lift-off with wheels down, or right after wheels up.
We never had accidents, because (wait for it)...we trained.
Engine failure in the critical rotation speed area is the most dangerous part of light twin flying and that is the area that needs the .most training and testing.

I think there’s a significant difference between doing this in the civilian world and doing it in the military world.

In the military world, those that don’t have the basic skills wash out. In the civilian world, they buy more training until they can meet standard on checkride day, and then let those skills atrophy until the next time they need to be dragged kicking and screaming up to standard.

 

[Albany Tom]

But why is it different? I get not mandating spin training anymore, because most spins happen in the pattern, and that low it's not recoverable. But engine cuts ARE recoverable, if the pilot has their act together. Without training it, what are the realistic chances of recovery? Not a rhetorical question...I don't know.

For SE, I believe that if a pilot hasn't experienced a simulated engine out on climb out, they probably won't successfully recover if it happens by surprise. Likewise simulated engine out to landing. I don't think either is required for PPL, but both are a good idea.

 

[Kritchlow]

So teaching people to fly at a speed they shouldn’t be flying anywhere near (negative training) to show them a watered-down aerodynamic result that won’t happen outside of airplanes specifically designed to water them down (negative training) and teach a reaction that doesn’t get enough practice to be viable in real life and therefore give a false confidence in the pilot’s abilities (negative training) is somehow important to do?

and let’s not forget that even in the airplanes that aren’t designed to water down the aerodynamic reaction, the FAA recommends a technique that gives the watered-down reaction.

Isn’t that what we do when we teach stall recovery?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Isn’t that what we do when we teach stall recovery?

No. generally speaking, the watered down stall reaction exists outside of training airplanes. And for those airplanes that don’t have the watered down reaction, stalls are usually trained as part of checkout, and no technique is applied to give the watered down reaction.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Engine cuts right after lift-off. That's where the killing accidents happen. And don't use the "too dangerous" excuse.
We did it in the Army. The check ride was going to be an engine cut in one of three places: about 10 knots before rotation speed (Baron B-55) or just after lift-off with wheels down, or right after wheels up.
We never had accidents, because (wait for it)...we trained.
Engine failure in the critical rotation speed area is the most dangerous part of light twin flying and that is the area that needs the .most training and testing.

Doing that in many of the light twin trainers will result in a crash. Not enough performance.

 

[nosehair]

Doing that in many of the light twin trainers will result in a crash. Not enough performance.

Oh no, good sir. Knee-jerk muscle-memory responses can be trained.in any twin-motor asymmetrical thrust machine. Performance is in the pilot, not the machine.
....and to the poster who compares military pilots to civilian pilots who don't/can't buy more training: that difference can and does exist, but only because we let it. We let them get by with inadequate training.
Set the check ride standards and watch the students train up to it.

 

[RussR]

Oh no, good sir. Knee-jerk muscle-memory responses can be trained.in any twin-motor asymmetrical thrust machine. Performance is in the pilot, not the machine.
....and to the poster who compares military pilots to civilian pilots who don't/can't buy more training: that difference can and does exist, but only because we let it. We let them get by with inadequate training.
Set the check ride standards and watch the students train up to it.

The difference between military and civilian-trained pilots is NOT simply because we let there be a difference. I am not a military-trained pilot, so I don't have a bias here, but it just seems common sense to me.

A military pilot:
- competes for the position
- is young and eager
- is healthy
- faces significant repercussions if they fail (like losing their job)
- is in training full-time

A civilian pilot:
- has to have enough money
- that's pretty much it

I once taught a 65 year-old man for his Private. This guy did not know anything about airplanes when he started. He didn't grow up around them, he hadn't spent his life reading about them, he didn't play flight simulator until he could save up his money. He literally just looked up in the sky one day, saw an airplane and decided it sounded like a fun thing to learn in his retirement. We started off with "this is a wing". He took 100 hours, but he stuck with it and did get it done.

But to say there's no difference in ability between someone like him and a 22-year old Lieutenant is just being disingenuous.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Set the check ride standards and watch the students train up to it.

That’s exactly what’s happening now…and once the checkride is over, the standards no longer exist for that pilot, and he or she is free to fall well below those standards.

 

[nosehair]

That’s exactly what’s happening now…and once the checkride is over, the standards no longer exist for that pilot, and he or she is free to fall well below those standards.

What's happening now is the engine cut before liftoff is given so slow that it is not a realistic sudden yaw that occurs near lift-off, or after lift-off at a well-established climb-out so as not to be a danger to the Examiner.
Neither of these scenarios simulates the real- life action required when the engine fails during the crucial right-before,during, and after liftoff in various configuration which is when the killing occurs.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What's happening now is the engine cut before liftoff is given so slow that it is not a realistic sudden yaw that occurs near lift-off, or after lift-off at a well-established climb-out so as not to be a danger to the Examiner.
Neither of these scenarios simulates the real- life action required when the engine fails during the crucial right-before,during, and after liftoff in various configuration which is when the killing occurs.

Why would a pilot care about maintaining that standard any more than any other?

 

[Albany Tom]

Not to steer the thread too far off topic, but yes, military/civilian training is different. And I'm sure the story of the 65 year old above is fairly common. But there are a lot of civilian pilots that didn't have an ability to fly when they were younger. Their vision wasn't good enough to make a career out it, or join the military Laser eye surgery was not quite there yet. Flight training wasn't an option, because they were busy running a business or raising a family. Fast forward 30 years, and that guy or girl has taken care of his or her family, his community, and now they can afford to do the thing they've been longing to do since they were a kid.

As far as the incentive goes, both the 20 yr old and the 65 yr old have the same one with respect to getting an engine out on climb out right, single or multi-engine. If you don't do it right when it happens for real, you don't get to go home that day. NOT suggesting the training is the same, or that pilots are the same, but whatever the standard is, it should be geared toward those that understand the importance of having current skills and is willing to maintain them. Those that aren't, we can't fix anyway, in my view.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Oh no, good sir. Knee-jerk muscle-memory responses can be trained.in any twin-motor asymmetrical thrust machine. Performance is in the pilot, not the machine.
....and to the poster who compares military pilots to civilian pilots who don't/can't buy more training: that difference can and does exist, but only because we let it. We let them get by with inadequate training.
Set the check ride standards and watch the students train up to it.

That’s total bs. If an aircraft does not have enough performance to climb on one engine there is no magic pilot sauce that makes it climb.

 

[flyingpreacher]

The difference between military and civilian-trained pilots is NOT simply because we let there be a difference. I am not a military-trained pilot, so I don't have a bias here, but it just seems common sense to me...But to say there's no difference in ability between someone like him and a 22-year old Lieutenant is just being disingenuous.

I'd say the difference between the 65 year old civilian GA pilot and the 22 year old Lieutenant is the same between the 16 year old whose parents can afford to let him fly even though he doesn't have the drive and the 30 year old who is working doubles and pinching pennies so he can fly every opportunity. The one who is motivated to train and genuinely cares will train to and above the standard without being dragged kicking and screaming. My instructor has a student who owned his own 172RG and took 75+ hours to get to his Private checkride while another student started his checkride at 40.5 because he was driven.

Bottom line, I think it is partly because we let there be a difference, but there doesn't HAVE to be. Like was pointed out before, unmotivated military pilots (while unusual) wash out and the ones who remain are committed. In the GA ranks, we don't have the wash out option, just the "push it back" option. Spreading that PAR out over 2 years as opposed to a few months doesn't develop the same consistency or accuracy. And while that 2+ year pilot might meet the standard, the guy who gets there in a few months and wants to have his IRA and CSEL in 18 months is going to go above and beyond because he sees the end goal.

My how we've gotten away from the original topic, so let me tie back in if I may, that motivated, driven pilot, when he gets to his AMEL or CMEL is going to WANT to be as proficient as he can be because he probably plans to go further to CMEL, MEI, ATP, etc. In that case, it doesn't really matter what you test on the checkride, he'll want to train above that standard.

On the flip side, the "just get by" student will be just as unsafe if you jack the standards up because he's only getting JUUUUST enough skill development to get him past the DPE without really caring about the real world implications of those skills. I realize that this may be a generalization, but I think by in large, it is a valid generalization.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'd say the difference between the 65 year old civilian GA pilot and the 22 year old Lieutenant

I’m not even talking about 65-year-olds…I regularly see “professional” pilots who have to be taught the procedures and techniques to survive a V1 cut every six months or year in an airplane they’ve been flying/training in for years.