Multi-Engine Training...

Snaggletooth

Snaggletooth

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
665
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dustin
I've been wanting to start my Multi-Engine Training soon, but I have a few questions.

A. Do I need to have HP/Complex time before getting my Multi, or is it do-able just to get the HP/Complex while doing the Multi?

B. About how much does it cost to get the PP-AMEL Rating?
 
A. no not required before starting the training although it might be beneficial to have experience in an airplane more complicated than a 172. That way stepping up to retract gear, presumably higher speeds, and at least twice as many buttons and levers in the cockpit is not such a big step.

B. Depends on the school.
 
And depending on the airplane you use, you may get the complex endorsement but not the HP endorsement out of the ME training.

I'm trying to think of any non-complex ME airplanes used in training, but failing.
 
Cost depends a lot. Kent got his from a guy who churns them out in Michigan, and I seem to recall it was pretty economical.

However, from a cost perspective I would recommend waiting until you pass 250 hours so you can get your CP-AMEL rather than PP-AMEL. Otherwise you'll need to take an additional checkride to upgrade you PP-ASEL to a CP-ASEL and then upgrade your PP-AMEL to a CP-AMEL.

I bought my Aztec at around 225 TT, and flew it with my instructor for about 35 hours before taking the checkride. I could have done it way sooner, but since I had decided to wait until passing 250 before doing the ride, I figured why not get more instruction?
 
Snaggletooth said:
I've been wanting to start my Multi-Engine Training soon, but I have a few questions.

A. Do I need to have HP/Complex time before getting my Multi, or is it do-able just to get the HP/Complex while doing the Multi?
Click to expand...
You not only don't need HP/Complex before starting the training, you don't actually need either to get the rating although for practical reasons the complex signoff is going to be needed. HP is only required if the engines (individually) exceed 200 HP and many of the twins used for training are 200 HP or less. If you trained in such a twin the HP signoff is neither needed nor attainable.

B. About how much does it cost to get the PP-AMEL Rating?
Click to expand...
If you are already comfortable flying a reasonably fast complex single it can be done in as little as a few hours plus the checkride but 8-10 hrs is pretty typical AFaIK. If you've never flown anything but a fixed gear trainer I'd expect it to take considerably longer. You'd have to check on the actual rates for twin rentals and instructors in your area to get a price. Around here I think you'd pay 180-220/hr for a twin trainer with CFI-ME.

And that's one reason why many folks go for their complex signoff before attempting the AMEL, you can end up with complex/HP, and AMEL for less going in that sequence. Also FWIW, you aren't likely to be allowed to rent any twin on your own (solo) so you'll have a problem retaining multi skills with no way to practice.
 
Snaggletooth said:
I've been wanting to start my Multi-Engine Training soon, but I have a few questions.

A. Do I need to have HP/Complex time before getting my Multi, or is it do-able just to get the HP/Complex while doing the Multi?

B. About how much does it cost to get the PP-AMEL Rating?
Click to expand...

A. Nope, you can actually start out in a twin and never fly SEL for all the FARs care. You may not get the HP with most of the twins that are used for training though.

B. Depends on how proficient you are and where you go for training. Most of the rating mills end up giving you 7 hrs in the airplane including the time for the checkride. Figure a minimum deal is going to run you at least $1500 anymore. It used to be a standard was $999, but fuel was a lot cheaper back then.
 
TMetzinger said:
And depending on the airplane you use, you may get the complex endorsement but not the HP endorsement out of the ME training.

I'm trying to think of any non-complex ME airplanes used in training, but failing.
Click to expand...


I remember seeing an add where they were doing it in a Partenavia.
 
Lancer cannot be used for multi engine checkride because the props don't feather.

i'd like to fly one though.
 
Snaggletooth said:
I'd be flying an Old Baron.
Click to expand...

Are you planning on pursuing your Instrument rating and commercial? If so, I would recommend from a cost standpoint that you get those done first and then pursue the multi addon. Much cheaper that way and if you get the multi as a private pilot and then want to do the commercial, you will end up having to take 2 checkrides.....and no, contrary to what some people will tell you, while there are some advantages to getting your multi as a private pilot and then doing the initial commercial in a twin, it is NOT cheaper. Any cost savings by taking the Commercial single engine ride in a fixed gear is offset by having to do all of your x-countries at over 200/hr plus two checkride fees! I did it that way for some specific reasons, but generally don't recommend it.

Also, stepping up from a 172/PA28 to a Baron is quite a jump. It can be done, but it will probably take you a bit longer to get comfortable in the Baron at your experience level. Going from Warrior to a Twin Commanche (not even hp) at around 100 hrs total time was alot more intimidating to me than it was to go from light twins to the B-25 at 300 TT.
 
Assuming you're in the same typical teenaged boat as me, you have a relatively low paying job, and can only afford to fly once every few weeks. I've been lucky so far and managed to go up once or twice every two weeks. But my point is, what's the practicality in pursuing multi engine aircraft when you can't afford to fly it? A Baron is easily twice as expensive as the average 172 per hour. Just something to think about.
 
Snaggletooth said:
A. Do I need to have HP/Complex time before getting my Multi, or is it do-able just to get the HP/Complex while doing the Multi?
Click to expand...

Need? No. But, it's a really good idea to have some complex time and preferably the endorsement and some proficiency in a complex airplanes. It generally costs a LOT of money to rent a twin, so it's better to get used to as many new things as you can BEFORE you get in the twin. In fact, if it's possible, rent the single-engine version of the twin you want to fly first to minimize the learning curve. Most twins have a single-engine counterpart: Seminole/Arrow IV, Seneca/Lance, Baron/Bonanza, etc.

B. About how much does it cost to get the PP-AMEL Rating?
Click to expand...

Ted DuPuis said:
Cost depends a lot. Kent got his from a guy who churns them out in Michigan, and I seem to recall it was pretty economical.
Click to expand...

Yep - This has got to be the low end right now. It was $1400 plus the checkride ($300 IIRC), and was about 7 hours. I did it with Tom Brady (dba Traverse Air) in Cadillac, MI. Tom specializes in doing multi and seaplane ratings, and he owns an Apache for the multi and a Clipper for the seaplane. It took 3 days, and followed a pretty simple formula. You are expected to know your stuff, and Tom will send you some materials about multi-engine flying in general and the Apache in particular for you to study.

At the other end of the spectrum, some twins like our local Seneca rent for $300/hr and you generally have to pay at least $50/hr for an MEI. :eek: If you don't get it done in a fairly short time frame, you'll end up spending even more money because it'll take you more hours. If I had done my rating at my home drome, it would have cost me AT LEAST DOUBLE what it did with Tom.

However, from a cost perspective I would recommend waiting until you pass 250 hours so you can get your CP-AMEL rather than PP-AMEL. Otherwise you'll need to take an additional checkride to upgrade you PP-ASEL to a CP-ASEL and then upgrade your PP-AMEL to a CP-AMEL.
Click to expand...

What Ted said. I decided to get my commercial done before adding on any additional categories/classes so that I can add them all at the commercial level. You just never know when it's going to come in handy to be commercially rated for whatever - I got to fly right seat in a Hawker 800 a few months ago just by chance! So, unless you have money to burn, get the multi done at the commercial level.
 
gismo said:
Around here I think you'd pay 180-220/hr for a twin trainer with CFI-ME.
Click to expand...

Highly doubt it - Prices haven't been that low for several years.

Best rate I can find on the web in your area is at MIC - Duchess for $190/hr, MEI for $45/hr, total $235/hr, although those rates are over two years old.
 
TMetzinger said:
I'm trying to think of any non-complex ME airplanes used in training, but failing.
Click to expand...
The number of non-complex ME's which can be used for the ME rating is fairly small, since a feathering prop is required. Something like the old Champion Lancer would not do because it has f/p props, so you can't do the required feathering demo. The following come to mind:
  • Partenavia P68
  • Brittan-Norman Islander
  • Twin Otter
However, I don't know of anyone doing ME training in those planes.
 
gismo said:
You not only don't need HP/Complex before starting the training, you don't actually need either to get the rating although for practical reasons the complex signoff is going to be needed.
Click to expand...
To explain a bit further, you must have the complex endorsement to take the ME practical test in a complex twin. So, unless you do your ME training and practical test in a non-complex twin (such as one I mentioned above), you will need the complex endorsement by the end of your ME training and before you take the practical test so you can be PIC of that complex airplane during the test as required by 61.47(b).*

Also, most of the planes used for ME training have engines of 200 HP or less, and so don't qualify as HP. The good news is that you don't need the HP endorsement to be PIC in them. The bad news is you can't get your HP endorsement while training for your ME rating in them.

*As a side note, if you're doing your ME as your initial Commercial rating, you will have to do it in a complex twin.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Is feathering required, or just a shutdown/restart?
Click to expand...
Feathering is required.
The feathering of one propeller shall be demonstrated in flight, in a
multiengine airplane equipped with propellers which can be safely feathered​
and unfeathered.
Click to expand...
No options or wriggle room on this one, and per 61.45(b), that means you must show up with an airplane that has featherable (and unfeatherable) props. Sorry about that, all you Champion Lancer fans.
 
Ron Levy said:
Feathering is required.
No options or wriggle room on this one, and per 61.45(b), that means you must show up with an airplane that has featherable (and unfeatherable) props. Sorry about that, all you Champion Lancer fans.
Click to expand...
Didn't Diamond get around it with the -42?
 
Ken Ibold said:
Didn't Diamond get around it with the -42?
Click to expand...

I *think* they got an exception to the controllable pitch propeller part of the complex endorsement for the -42 since it has a single power level and no independent way to vary RPM. I assume the DA-42 still has a way to feather the prop when you shut an engine down?
 
Dustin, if you're not IR'd all all you need is a VFR only Multi, then it's about FIVE HOURS of work, provided you're comfortable already in complex.

If you're IR'd, I'd get very very instrument current in Singles, then the Multi-Insturment is about eight hours. YMMV.
 
tonycondon said:
I *think* they got an exception to the controllable pitch propeller part of the complex endorsement for the -42 since it has a single power level and no independent way to vary RPM. I assume the DA-42 still has a way to feather the prop when you shut an engine down?
Click to expand...
Tony is correct. They decided it was complex enough for this purpose, and the prop can be feathered and unfeathered for that Task, although the FAA's word for what they got is an "exemption."
 
bbchien said:
Dustin, if you're not IR'd all all you need is a VFR only Multi, then it's about FIVE HOURS of work, provided you're comfortable already in complex.

If you're IR'd, I'd get very very instrument current in Singles, then the Multi-Insturment is about eight hours. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I think 5 hrs is a stretch....we are talking about stepping up from a 172 to a Baron and he just got his PPL a few months ago. Unless there are extenuating circumstances (like he has been flying complex/hp planes since he was 13 with his dad or something), it is probably going to take a lot more than 5 hrs to get comfortable in the plane. I'd say at least 10 for a VFR only. Sure there are pilot mills that will sign him off and might get him through the checkride with a 'staff' examiner, but I don't think that is the best way.

IF he does a VFR only multi and then wants to get his IR, then he will have to do the Instrument ride in a twin.....or pay for two separate checkrides.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I think 5 hrs is a stretch....we are talking about stepping up from a 172 to a Baron and he just got his PPL a few months ago. Unless there are extenuating circumstances (like he has been flying complex/hp planes since he was 13 with his dad or something), it is probably going to take a lot more than 5 hrs to get comfortable in the plane. I'd say at least 10 for a VFR only. Sure there are pilot mills that will sign him off and might get him through the checkride with a 'staff' examiner, but I don't think that is the best way.

IF he does a VFR only multi and then wants to get his IR, then he will have to do the Instrument ride in a twin.....or pay for two separate checkrides.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Dr. Bruce did say 5 hours "if you're very comfortable in a complex airplane".
 
I know this isn't a poll, but what worked for me was to get the SE commercial first. I then did the MEL add-on at Spike's above mentioned Multiengine Training in Travelairs. And like Kent, I am VERY glad I did.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a complex SE plane, so that made it pretty simple to do the CSEL.
 
Lance F said:
I know this isn't a poll, but what worked for me was to get the SE commercial first. I then did the MEL add-on at Spike's above mentioned Multiengine Training in Travelairs. And like Kent, I am VERY glad I did.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a complex SE plane, so that made it pretty simple to do the CSEL.
Click to expand...
When I took AMEL training I already had several hundred hours in a Bonanza and the Dutchess I flew for the training was slower and less "complex" than my Bo so all I really had to deal with was flying with one engine inop.
 
taters said:
Best ME trainer IMO. But hard to keep those older nitrogen accumulators working for the unfeather.
Click to expand...
I've always been partial to the 150 Apache -- cheap, and teaches folks that if one quits on takeoff in a light piston twin, you ain't gonna fly out of it. Folks who learn in something like an Aztec (with nothing but student, instructor, and half fuel aboard) get the idea that one engine can still fly them out of trouble, and that's why they get killed later when one quits under less forgiving conditions.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've always been partial to the 150 Apache -- cheap, and teaches folks that if one quits on takeoff in a light piston twin, you ain't gonna fly out of it. Folks who learn in something like an Aztec (with nothing but student, instructor, and half fuel aboard) get the idea that one engine can still fly them out of trouble, and that's why they get killed later when one quits under less forgiving conditions.
Click to expand...

Funny, the one person I know who lost an engine right after takeoff in an Apache made it out of it, and the one person I know who lost an engine right after takeoff in an Aztec didn't.

So the real answer? It depends...

Teaching people that something will always be the case isn't a good idea. Why not teach them to think?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Funny, the one person I know who lost an engine right after takeoff in an Apache made it out of it, and the one person I know who lost an engine right after takeoff in an Aztec didn't.

So the real answer? It depends...

Teaching people that something will always be the case isn't a good idea. Why not teach them to think?
Click to expand...


God forbid a CFI teach someone to think.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Funny, the one person I know who lost an engine right after takeoff in an Apache made it out of it, and the one person I know who lost an engine right after takeoff in an Aztec didn't.

So the real answer? It depends...

Teaching people that something will always be the case isn't a good idea. Why not teach them to think?
Click to expand...
Point well taken. However, after a couple thousand hours in light twins, I've found that most often, they won't fly if one quits before Vyse and gear up, and if they trained in a plane with great excess power (like an Aztec with only trainee and instructor), they are stunned to find out (when it really happens) that the plane won't fly after one quits at or just after liftoff with a full load, and they end up rolled over and dead. I'd rather have them learn that lesson in training than in real life later on.
 
Henning said:
God forbid a CFI teach someone to think.
Click to expand...
You have to do your thinking about engine failure during the takeoff sequence before you release brakes. Once you're rolling, there is no time to think, just to react according to your plan. However, that still doesn't stop folks from becoming conditioned by training at light weights with big engines to believe the plane will fly out of almost anything, and it is that conditioning flying with an underpowered trainer avoids. IOW, an Apache with a training load is not a bad simulation of what would happen in an Aztec with a realistic load, but if you are conditioned to expect the response of an Aztec with a training load, you will be shocked at what happens in an Aztec with a realisitc load.

Ref: Laws of Primacy and Exercise
 
Last edited:
I got my ME in the summer, and my pre takeoff brief in the seminole for an engine failure anywhere below pattern altitude was to pull back both throttles and treat it like I lost both engines. That particular aircraft couldn't climb at Vyse in those conditions, and the temptation to try and keep flying even as the airspeed is decaying towards Vmc is strong. I figured it was better to maintain control of the airplane even as I landed off-airport.

As the weather cooled my plans changed.

It always comes down to knowing the aircraft and the current conditions - the only "always" rule in flying that I know of is that you should ALWAYS think before you act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top