Multi-Engine Rating

[Greg Bockelman]

It's in his signature line. Why would he be concerned that I noticed it?

Well, FWIW, as far as I can tell, it ISN'T in his sig line. Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean he doesn't have the rating.

But, I think it is a fair assumption that he does NOT have the rating.

 

[mondtster]

DPE who frowns at applicants with less than 10hrs.

I've been told that the examiners around here do too. Because of this I think most of the people in this area have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 hours when they go to see the examiner.

If you are decent at flying an airplane and flying approaches prior to starting training I think you could easily get it done in about 6-8 hours of flying time. There isn't anything terribly hard about flying a twin, it just might take a bit longer for some people to catch on to things depending on what their flying background is like. A person that has spent the majority of their time flying something like a Cessna 150 and has little or no complex and high performance time is going to start out quite a bit farther behind the airplane than someone who has spent a fair number of hours flying something like a Mooney or Bonanza. It will likely be apparent and the time to get to the checkride will likely reflect this.

 

[ajstoner21]

It's in his signature line. Why would he be concerned that I noticed it?

I'm not hiding anything. Most people can figure out enough to search for me in the airman registry. My feelings aren't hurt.

But Ron is right. I don't have an instrument rating if I did, it definitely would have taken longer. As others have said though, I wouldn't say I feel competent in a twin without a lot more practice.

 

[JHW]

If/when I did it, I'd want the former.

Thank you for the information so far, folks. ME is a ways out (not a need, not event a want at this time). But it's always good to gain understanding of what it's about should someone else pose the question to me.

don't assume that the quick and easy way is not just as viable. No one is going to rent you a multi and odds are you won't buy the model you initially train in, so there is not as much of an argument to add training in the foolproof seminole etc. For all practical purposes, getting the rating and getting insured in the one you eventually buy are two distinct and separate activities with their own training requirements.

 

[Henning]

don't assume that the quick and easy way is not just as viable. No one is going to rent you a multi and odds are you won't buy the model you initially train in, so there is not as much of an argument to add training in the foolproof seminole etc. For all practical purposes, getting the rating and getting insured in the one you eventually buy are two distinct and separate activities with their own training requirements.

Yep, if you are collecting ratings for your scrap book, buy the cheapest rating you can. If there is a twin you're going to keep flying, get your rating in it, (if it's yours, it'll reduce your first year insurance if you do your check ride in it) and fly off the rest of the hours the insurance requires.

 

[comanchepilot]

learn in the nastiest lowest power twin you can find with all the bad habits - everything else is easy.

You want quality training from competent people. So the # of hours may not really match up with what you pay for it - keep that in mind Mike. . . you 'could find' an outfit to mill you good for $2500 but you'd be much better off getting individualized training from quality instructors for $4000. The first time you have to use your training that $1500 becomes worth tens of thousands instantly.

 

[bbchien]

It seems to depend on how instrument proficient you are, and how much complex time you have......

 

[Henning]

learn in the nastiest lowest power twin you can find with all the bad habits - everything else is easy.

You want quality training from competent people. So the # of hours may not really match up with what you pay for it - keep that in mind Mike. . . you 'could find' an outfit to mill you good for $2500 but you'd be much better off getting individualized training from quality instructors for $4000. The first time you have to use your training that $1500 becomes worth tens of thousands instantly.

Low power isn't nasty in a twin, it's docile. You may not maintain altitude, or climb out of a failure after rotation but that's not a training requirement anyway. Multi training isn't really about physical skill and prowess, twins are not difficult to fly on a single or both, that's why the ratings can be earned in a minimum of time. There is really only one thing you have to learn physically in a twin and commit to muscle memory and that is "dead foot, dead engine" and I have a nifty little drill that can be practiced anywhere: Push down on your left foot, roll your right hand to the right(toward your pinky), push down on your right foot, roll your right hand to the left(toward your thumb) just keep doing this over and over.

The one thing I don't like in typical multi training is the Identify, verify, feather routine using the throttle to verify. I am hand on the throttles until I hit the gear switch as soon as I have positive rate, from there my hand goes to the props. I can verify the dead engine by pulling back on the prop lever, if I don't hear a change in pitch from the running engine, I can continue back into the feather detent. If I hear a change, I have the wrong lever, not highly likely since my hand is tuned to oppose my foot that is mashing my rudder by the previous drill. This saves about 3 seconds and eliminates a possible point of failure grabbing the wrong prop lever after verifying with the throttle, and it also keeps my eyes forward monitoring my airspeed, attitude and path rather than looking at my quadrant making sure I grab the right lever.

I think there may be one instructor out there teaching this technique.

What the real thing you have to learn with a twin is evaluating more options BEFORE you take the runway. The difference in flying a twin isn't physical, it's mental. SEL is to VFR as MEL is to IFR if you get the analogy.

 

[LDJones]

Low power isn't nasty in a twin, it's docile. You may not maintain altitude, or climb out of a failure after rotation but that's not a training requirement anyway. Multi training isn't really about physical skill and prowess, twins are not difficult to fly on a single or both, that's why the ratings can be earned in a minimum of time. There is really only one thing you have to learn physically in a twin and commit to muscle memory and that is "dead foot, dead engine" and I have a nifty little drill that can be practiced anywhere: Push down on your left foot, roll your right hand to the right(toward your pinky), push down on your right foot, roll your right hand to the left(toward your thumb) just keep doing this over and over.

The one thing I don't like in typical multi training is the Identify, verify, feather routine using the throttle to verify. I am hand on the throttles until I hit the gear switch as soon as I have positive rate, from there my hand goes to the props. I can verify the dead engine by pulling back on the prop lever, if I don't hear a change in pitch from the running engine, I can continue back into the feather detent. If I hear a change, I have the wrong lever, not highly likely since my hand is tuned to oppose my foot that is mashing my rudder by the previous drill. This saves about 3 seconds and eliminates a possible point of failure grabbing the wrong prop lever after verifying with the throttle, and it also keeps my eyes forward monitoring my airspeed, attitude and path rather than looking at my quadrant making sure I grab the right lever.

I think there may be one instructor out there teaching this technique.

What the real thing you have to learn with a twin is evaluating more options BEFORE you take the runway. The difference in flying a twin isn't physical, it's mental. SEL is to VFR as MEL is to IFR if you get the analogy.

Interesting....I can see merit in your argument. I'm going to do some experimenting with that idea.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, FWIW, as far as I can tell, it ISN'T in his sig line. Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean he doesn't have the rating.

His sig line says "PP-ASEL/AMEL, AGI, IGI". No "IA" there, so...

But, I think it is a fair assumption that he does NOT have the rating.

...yes, I suppose it was an assumption. In any event, it's public information available on the FAA web site. You can hide your address, but not your qualifications.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Typical is 5-6 hrs and a check ride.

Yesteday I visited a 141 school and inquired about getting my IFR and multi and they quoted me about what henning said. They said typical might be 7 hrs including check ride but he was qualifying it with someone with some complex time already.

 

[gismo]

Yesteday I visited a 141 school and inquired about getting my IFR and multi and they quoted me about what henning said. They said typical might be 7 hrs including check ride but he was qualifying it with someone with some complex time already.

I had well over 1000 hours in retracts including several hundred in a Bonanza when I got my multi rating. I was also very current on instrument flying at the time. I used a Dutchess which was slower than the Bonanza I was used to flying and I was comfortable flying and landing it (on two engines) by the end of the first hour. I think I had about 5 hours multi when I went for the checkride. But if the Dutchess was the first retractable airplane I flew much or considerably faster than what I was used to I expect the training could have taken twice as long.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I read your inquiry exactly like henning and others did..what is minimum likely cost.

Insurance statistics and rates say you will be safe at about 100 hrs, you will be tolerably safe at 50 hrs, they might let you take a pax at 25 hrs.

When I got my high performance/complex check out I had 500-550 hrs in the Cherokee. I had perfect approach speed control and landings and always landed on the straight line down the middle of the runway. So upgrading to the Comanche was a piece of cake. All the numbers on the Comanche are 10 mph higher. Downwind, base, final approach, climb out, best climb..... I had 1 1/2 hrs right seat watching the owner fly the Comanche before I bought it and 37 minutes left seat with a CFI and he signed me off. My diciplined approach to my landings and take offs showed direct results in my easy transition to the Comanche 250. Now if only I could improve my course deviation and altitude maintenance to the same level.

Lucky for me, that same week began the Kansas Air Tour of visiting 25 KS airports over 5 days (across KS). I learned in the next week with about 25 approaches and landings at the Kansas Air Tour how to arrive at the airport at the correct altitude and speed. Which sounds simple but it is nothing like doing it in a 172 or Cherokee.

I guess what I am saying is that some pilots hold themselves to a high standard on landings. Always flair at the numbers and always landing within 1' of the white line and they tend to have developed better maneuvering skills. This might translate into faster transitions since they already have mastered to a high degree maneuvering. I had no problem maintaining near exact approach speeds for the Comanche which is a key to landing them gracefully.

I fly with many pilots and I can tell you this is the exception rather than the rule among non pro-recreation/hobby pilots. Anyone can do it, we just all have different ideas about it I guess.

Henning, your picking nits and causing an unneeded ruckus.

Yes, I used the term rating. But I didn't intend the question to imply the minimum amount of time to be ready for the check ride.

My preferred standard is to properly prepare for beyond the checkride so that I am no danger to myself or any future passengers.

 

[wabower]

Ditto, almost to the penny on all counts except a T-210 that was even heavier, and M/E training in a Snicker that was even lighter.

I had well over 1000 hours in retracts including several hundred in a Bonanza when I got my multi rating. I was also very current on instrument flying at the time. I used a Dutchess which was slower than the Bonanza I was used to flying and I was comfortable flying and landing it (on two engines) by the end of the first hour. I think I had about 5 hours multi when I went for the checkride. But if the Dutchess was the first retractable airplane I flew much or considerably faster than what I was used to I expect the training could have taken twice as long.

 

[JimG.]

I had well over 1000 hours in retracts including several hundred in a Bonanza when I got my multi rating. I was also very current on instrument flying at the time. I used a Dutchess which was slower than the Bonanza I was used to flying and I was comfortable flying and landing it (on two engines) by the end of the first hour. I think I had about 5 hours multi when I went for the checkride. But if the Dutchess was the first retractable airplane I flew much or considerably faster than what I was used to I expect the training could have taken twice as long.

Same here

I had been flying a bonanza for 20 years by that time as well.

The only “challenge” I had was restarting an engine before I hit the ground, as the Seminol was losing About 200+ feet per minute.

The rest of the lesson, I flew it like a slow, heavy single

 

[Fearless Tower]

The one thing I don't like in typical multi training is the Identify, verify, feather routine using the throttle to verify. I am hand on the throttles until I hit the gear switch as soon as I have positive rate, from there my hand goes to the props. I can verify the dead engine by pulling back on the prop lever, if I don't hear a change in pitch from the running engine, I can continue back into the feather detent. If I hear a change, I have the wrong lever, not highly likely since my hand is tuned to oppose my foot that is mashing my rudder by the previous drill. This saves about 3 seconds and eliminates a possible point of failure grabbing the wrong prop lever after verifying with the throttle, and it also keeps my eyes forward monitoring my airspeed, attitude and path rather than looking at my quadrant making sure I grab the right lever.

I think there may be one instructor out there teaching this technique.

If I'm not mistaken, either SimCom or Flight Safety teaches that technique.

 

[poadeleted20]

I read your inquiry exactly like henning and others did..what is minimum likely cost.

I read the words "average" and "typical", not "minimum" in the OP's question:

...what is the typical/average amount of time someone would spend to train for the MEL rating?

My answer would change if the question were different than what the OP actually asked, but I answered the OP's actual question.

 

[Skylane81E]

I think the key is to treat the multi like any other rating, only more so, as a license to learn.

Just because I can fly a Seneca doesn't make it a good idea to jump into a Navajo or 421, much like completing training in a DA-20 for my initial didn't mean I should have jumped into T210 strait away.

 

[wabower]

I think it's a real good rating to totally ignore until you actually need it or feel you need to wear a bigger watch or Raybans and buy one of those internet stretching devices in spite of their poor reviews. There's nothing about flying a twin that is of any value to a S/E pilot that more S/E training wouldn't be better.

I think the key is to treat the multi like any other rating, only more so, as a license to learn.

Just because I can fly a Seneca doesn't make it a good idea to jump into a Navajo or 421, much like completing training in a DA-20 for my initial didn't mean I should have jumped into T210 strait away.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

We see things as 'we are' not as 'they are'....

I'm not saying I'm right only that I read it like some others did. I guess hanging around here and answering a lot of aviation related cost questions jades a person to thinking in minimum cost.... not saying its right.

I read the words "average" and "typical", not "minimum" in the OP's question:
My answer would change if the question were different than what the OP actually asked, but I answered the OP's actual question.

 

[gismo]

I think it's a real good rating to totally ignore until you actually need it or feel you need to wear a bigger watch or Raybans and buy one of those internet stretching devices in spite of their poor reviews. There's nothing about flying a twin that is of any value to a S/E pilot that more S/E training wouldn't be better.

I found a couple advantages. One was the checkride replaced a BFR and was more fun. But the biggest advantage of getting rated for AMEL was that it allowed me to log enough time in other people's twins that I was able to get insurance at a reasonable rate and with minimal limitations when I bought a Baron a few years later. Of course if you're never going to own or regularly fly a twin what you said makes sense.

 

[Henning]

I think it's a real good rating to totally ignore until you actually need it or feel you need to wear a bigger watch or Raybans and buy one of those internet stretching devices in spite of their poor reviews. There's nothing about flying a twin that is of any value to a S/E pilot that more S/E training wouldn't be better.

Truth right there. Unless you're going to be flying a twin, no reason to be rated in one. It's not like someone is going to offer you a ferry opportunity on your MEL regardless if you spent 5 or 15 hrs getting it.

 

[Jeff K]

We see things as 'we are' not as 'they are'....

I'm not saying I'm right only that I read it like some others did. I guess hanging around here and answering a lot of aviation related cost questions jades a person to thinking in minimum cost.... not saying its right.

No, you didn't read it wrong. English is a precise language. Here is what the OP asked:

---"what is the typical/average amount of time someone would spend to train for the MEL rating?"

Now perhaps the OP didn't mean it that way and/or that's not a good idea, but the question was training for a specific objective.... the MEL rating.

 

[DeeG]

I guess I'm a slow learner. 47 hours in a Twin Comanche. Granted a bunch of that was "let's go to Bullhead/Vegas for the weekend" or "Anyone want to go to Santa Barbara for lunch?"......lol.

I was allowed to solo the TC before I got the rating.

1.2 hour Multi-Comm-IFR ride. (Already had the single IFR, but no multi or commercial). Checkride was a piece of cake. 3 months later I was flying a King Air.