Is this cheesy?

[spiderweb]

I was talking with a friend about getting the multi. I mentioned that whle I think the instructors at the one place I go to are good, that they aren't nearly as experienced or thorough as my MEI. My MEI probably would not sign me off for the exam until at least 20 hours. I added that I respect that because my CFI is very thorough, and doesn't want to sign anyone off until they are not only prepared for the checkride, but also truly in command. Certainly, I would want at least 20 hours before I flew a twin solo. My friend's thought was this: why not get the multi at the other place (they say 8-12 hours) just so that you have the certificate. After that, go flying with your MEI for as long as you want to feel comfortable. My friend points out that most insurance is going to require 30 hours, anyway.

This method is cheaper, becuase the other school uses Seminoles, and my MEI will use either a C310 or a Seneca.

 

[Richard]

Is what cheesy? Please explain. For some it may make sense to get the rating faster and then get er done with another CFI; for others it may make sense to do it the way you want. The former method allows you to log PIC at less hours. The latter develops a deeper familiarity with your MEI and avoid any conflicting habits from a different MEI.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I was talking with a friend about getting the multi. I mentioned that whle I think the instructors at the one place I go to are good, that they aren't nearly as experienced or thorough as my MEI. My MEI probably would not sign me off for the exam until at least 20 hours. I added that I respect that because my CFI is very thorough, and doesn't want to sign anyone off until they are not only prepared for the checkride, but also truly in command. Certainly, I would want at least 20 hours before I flew a twin solo. My friend's thought was this: why not get the multi at the other place (they say 8-12 hours) just so that you have the certificate. After that, go flying with your MEI for as long as you want to feel comfortable. My friend points out that most insurance is going to require 30 hours, anyway.

This method is cheaper, becuase the other school uses Seminoles, and my MEI will use either a C310 or a Seneca.

Do it. Multiple aircraft/CFI exposures, etc.
It's both good planning AND cheesy... maybe like a nice smoked cheddar.
Just make sure it's not CHEESE WHIZZ !

 

[gismo]

Do it. Multiple aircraft/CFI exposures, etc.

I agree. Take the quick route to the checkride and then get some real experience with your more thorough CFI. I think you'll learn the "good stuff" better once you have the basics and any competent AMEL-CFII should be able to give you that. Besides if an opportunity comes along to fly someone's twin you can log the sole manipulator time. I think I picked up around 5 hours AMEL time just making demo flights in twins for sale that I was considering before I actually bought one.

 

[Henning]

I was talking with a friend about getting the multi. I mentioned that whle I think the instructors at the one place I go to are good, that they aren't nearly as experienced or thorough as my MEI. My MEI probably would not sign me off for the exam until at least 20 hours. I added that I respect that because my CFI is very thorough, and doesn't want to sign anyone off until they are not only prepared for the checkride, but also truly in command. Certainly, I would want at least 20 hours before I flew a twin solo. My friend's thought was this: why not get the multi at the other place (they say 8-12 hours) just so that you have the certificate. After that, go flying with your MEI for as long as you want to feel comfortable. My friend points out that most insurance is going to require 30 hours, anyway.

This method is cheaper, becuase the other school uses Seminoles, and my MEI will use either a C310 or a Seneca.

Well, since you're gonna end up with a Seneca anyway might as well go with the really thorough MEI in that, and put in a couple hours in the 310 doing cuts and such to get a feel for how ugly it can get.

 

[Missa]

This method is cheaper, becuase the other school uses Seminoles, and my MEI will use either a C310 or a Seneca.

Do you really want to learn to fly from the lowest bidder???

I know I spent more time and money then necessary to get my PPL, but I KNOW I'm a good and compitent pilot with a lot more experiance and confidance then I would have if I went to the lowest bidder.

Missa

 

[gismo]

Do you really want to learn to fly from the lowest bidder???

I know I spent more time and money then necessary to get my PPL, but I KNOW I'm a good and compitent pilot with a lot more experiance and confidance then I would have if I went to the lowest bidder.

Missa

With some exceptions, CFI costs are rarely a strong indicator of quality IME. Also the lower price Ben mentioned was more likely do to the equipment than the instructor's fee.

Ben, assuming the Seneca is turbocharged, it won't make a very good mult trainer as the owner will likely be pretty restrictive about engine cuts and that's pretty much what AMEL training is about. Also, as has been mentioned here in the past, pilots new to complex and fast airplanes have a much steeper learning curve with multi training than one who has enough experience in the former. If you want to minimize your multi training costs, make sure you are comfortable with the energy management aspects of a fast airplane, are able to fly an approach at 120 knots or greater, and have developed the correct habits WRT retractable landing gear and C/S props. With those issues already dealt with, I doubt you'd have any trouble becoming competent in a twin in less than 10 hours multi flight time, especially if you use a trainer like the Seminole that won't limit the amount of SE work you can reasonably do in that time.

Even if your intentions are to rent or own a Seneca in the not too distant future, I still recommend that you do all the training leading up to the checkride in the FBO's Seminole and move up to some quality dual in the Seneca or 310 after you have the rating. The Seminole's speeds are closer to what you are used to, and assuming a good CFI, the training will involve more of the stuff that really matters (single engine work).

 

[Missa]

With some exceptions, CFI costs are rarely a strong indicator of quality IME. Also the lower price Ben mentioned was more likely do to the equipment than the instructor's fee.

Not really familer with multis but I did a bit of checking out of costs in the area, yes there is not always a correltation between high cost / good instruction but there is a correlation between low cost / inexperianced instruction. Then there is the correlation of airplane costs, low coat = poor matinace though again only a week correlation between higher cost and good matinace. At least IME in single engine trainers.

My $.02 that's not worth much....

Missa

 

[MSmith]

If you pass a checkride, any "better" instruction on top is gravy. Go for it.

 

[gismo]

Not really familer with multis but I did a bit of checking out of costs in the area, yes there is not always a correltation between high cost / good instruction but there is a correlation between low cost / inexperianced instruction. Then there is the correlation of airplane costs, low coat = poor matinace though again only a week correlation between higher cost and good matinace. At least IME in single engine trainers.

My $.02 that's not worth much....

Missa

There's an inherent difference in the cost of a "light, light" twin like a Seminole or Dutchess vs a practical x/c machine like a Seneca III/IV/V or a Cessna 310 and that would be reflected in the rental rates even if the "quality" was the same. That aside, multi transition training is fairly abusive to the equipment and simply incompatible with "delicate" aircraft which some of the otherwise fine piston twins tend to be. If you train in something like a Senneca III you aren't likely to get the same concentration of engine cuts that instructors are willing to subject something more robust like a Seminole or Duchess to. The latter were designed to serve the training market, the Seneca wasn't.

 

[spiderweb]

Thanks for all of this advice. Good point about engine cuts in the Seneca. It is a II, BTW. The other thing about the Seneca is that because it has no critical engine (which would normally be considered a benefit), the engine-out training isn't as challenging.

Let's see; what else? OK, right--I have about 40 hours in the Saratoga, and nearly the same in the C182, so the faster approach speeds and hi-perf/complex part isn't an issue. We usually flew ILSs at 110 KIAS in the Saratoga and I like 100 in the C182. Is that slow for the Seneca or C310?

Right, and the training prices: My CFI is actually less expensive than the ones at the other school, but the aircraft will rent for $200-$250 as opposed to $185 for the Seminoles. It will probably all even out in the end; after all, once you've flown 100 hours in multis, you've spent a crapload (a technical term) of money, anyway.

What would stop all of this is if my teacher actually goes out and gets that C206.

 

[gismo]

Thanks for all of this advice. Good point about engine cuts in the Seneca. It is a II, BTW. The other thing about the Seneca is that because it has no critical engine (which would normally be considered a benefit), the engine-out training isn't as challenging.

AFaIK the critical engine thing is simply something you need to be aware of and not really a quality of training issue. That's probably why there's no "counter rotating" certificate limitation. VMC rollover training is partially simulated (by blocking rudder and/or aileron movement) as the real thing is a bit close to the "practicing bleeding" level of unsafe. The magnitude of asymmetrical thrust decreases with density altitude so training at 3500 AGL isn't realisitic if full control authority is retained, plus if you stall with serious asymmetrical thrust you will spin violently and there's no guarantee you can recover at all.

I can never remember whether the Seneca II was turbo'd but I think it was.

Let's see; what else? OK, right--I have about 40 hours in the Saratoga, and nearly the same in the C182, so the faster approach speeds and hi-perf/complex part isn't an issue. We usually flew ILSs at 110 KIAS in the Saratoga and I like 100 in the C182. Is that slow for the Seneca or C310?

Normal approach speed in a C310 would be somewhere between 100 and 120 KIAS, probably closer to the high side of that. I fly approaches at either 110 or 120 depending on the wx margin above mins. If the ceiling is low I have to go slower or I end up too fast over the fence, but the higher speed is more comfortable and gets the job done sooner.

Right, and the training prices: My CFI is actually less expensive than the ones at the other school, but the aircraft will rent for $200-$250 as opposed to $185 for the Seminoles. It will probably all even out in the end; after all, once you've flown 100 hours in multis, you've spent a crapload (a technical term) of money, anyway.

Sorry, "crapload" is slang. The correct technical term is "crapper load".

What would stop all of this is if my teacher actually goes out and gets that C206.

What's that got to do with it? If he buys an Extra are you going to forget the whole x/c thing and get into acro?

 

[Henning]

With some exceptions, CFI costs are rarely a strong indicator of quality IME.

I wholeheartedly agree with that, the cost is irrelevant to the quality of CFI. My best CFI was $30hr with a 172 wet. My best MEI was giving me free rides (saving me $160 a week in boat rides) in a Beech 18. Nothing like doing single engine work at full gross.

 

[spiderweb]

What's that got to do with it? If he buys an Extra are you going to forget the whole x/c thing and get into acro?

Oh, that's funny. Actually he's selling his Zlin (fully aerobatic) to get the Cessna (at least 182, hopefully 206). I got my IR in the Zlin. Let me tell you--we really did up the unusual attitudes!

 

[poadeleted20]

The advantage to your friend's method is that you can't start logging it as PIC time until you have the rating. So doing it that way means all the 310 time with your preferred instructor is PIC time, but doing it all with him means its just training time until the practical test. Just hope you don't learn too many bad habits at the "quickie" school that your preferred instructor has to unteach.

 

[spiderweb]

The advantage to your friend's method is that you can't start logging it as PIC time until you have the rating. So doing it that way means all the 310 time with your preferred instructor is PIC time, but doing it all with him means its just training time until the practical test. Just hope you don't learn too many bad habits at the "quickie" school that your preferred instructor has to unteach.

Thanks for your input, Ron. The school of which I speak, is pretty well respected (you know it and like it, too), so I am not worried about developing bad habits. I wouldn't ever fly with CFIs from a school I didn't regard as professional. The only real consideration with the teaching is that it will be from young guys or gals with not as much experience as my CFI. Then again, a lot of them make up for it by being really sharp and professional. Maybe the combination would be a really good one, come to think of it.