Multi-Pilots: Question

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
Checked out the Sennie I yesterday. It is in good shape. Vintage interior, but solid 6-pack and a 430, which is fine for the panel.

MEI I spoke with there is estimating 15 hours to checkride, or 6 or seven lessons.

Confirmed plane will, in fact, be available for X-C rentals, which is really the main point.

So here's the question, which Dr. Bruce reminded me I must consider: what training regimen would be considered adequate to keep up multi skills in a Seneca? How many hours per year should be training hours, for an average pilot, to be safe and proficient?

I ask because--and I know this is a real shock--the cost is considerable.
 
spiderweb said:
Checked out the Sennie I yesterday. It is in good shape. Vintage interior, but solid 6-pack and a 430, which is fine for the panel.

MEI I spoke with there is estimating 15 hours to checkride, or 6 or seven lessons.

Confirmed plane will, in fact, be available for X-C rentals, which is really the main point.

So here's the question, which Dr. Bruce reminded me I must consider: what training regimen would be considered adequate to keep up multi skills in a Seneca? How many hours per year should be training hours, for an average pilot, to be safe and proficient?

I ask because--and I know this is a real shock--the cost is considerable.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd treat it at least by IFR-like currency minimums, so at least a six month currency in the form of an "MPC"....Multi Proficiency Check, which would include a mini multi checkride with the OEI maneuvers, six takeoff and landings and, if IFR rated, a OEI approach.
 
I don't think it is possible to stay current on less than 50 hours/year.

AND, that's with a high proportion of your hours flying simply as recurrency with CFI, doing those engine kills, OEI ILSs, etc. Your recurrency requires HOOD time as well as Eyes- out time.

So if you budget for 70 hours of flight a year, I suspect you will be only using half of them to go places.

I will run 200 hours this year.....I am almost never in need of instrument recurrency, but those V1 engine "cuts"....(!) they never get that old.

WHAT are they charging/hr ?
 
In the past 12 months I've flown 130 hours or so, all in the 310. I think it would be hard to fly much less and feel proficient still, although it would probably help if my flying was spaced a little closer rather than my typical 15 hours in a weekend. Definitely would plan to fly 100 hours a year in it. I would also advise doing as much of your flying in it as possible to stay proficient. Also definitely need to have some sort of recurrent training that you do.
 
LDJones said:
Personally, I'd treat it at least by IFR-like currency minimums, so at least a six month currency in the form of an "MPC"....Multi Proficiency Check, which would include a mini multi checkride with the OEI maneuvers, six takeoff and landings and, if IFR rated, a OEI approach.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Loren. This was about what I was thinking, and also about what I can afford!
 
I train on every flight. The main thing about being safe and proficient distinguishable from a single is the thought processes. Regardless if you are flying in a single or twin, brief the takeoff for a twin as well. There is a small drill that you can do any time that will cover the main physical/muscle memory memory issue and that is while sitting and reading, watching TV, or whatever; with your arm to your side like it would be on the props or throttles hold your toes up, push down on your right foot and roll your hand to you left. Now let up your right foot and step down on your left while rolling your hand to your right. This will train your hand to coordinate with your feet in a proper "dead foot, dead engine" relationship so you will automatically be pulling the correct lever to correspondent with the dead engine. On take off my hand goes directly from the gear switch to the prop levers. This is the only 'time critical' zone to ME flying, getting the dead engine feathered when you are still in that low speed transitional phase. If you have the hand drill down, the probabilities that you're pulling the wrong lever are low, and you will hear that engine come down if you are pulling the wrong one very quickly. The whole 'verify with the throttle' to me is just a waste of time in the only time critical event and adds a point of error since even though you verified with throttle, you still have the potential to grab the wrong prop handle.

Another thing you want to burn into your brain during the training, and then redo near the beginning of each flight is when you are doing power cuts, observe the ball! Note which way it swings. VFR, engine failures are dirt simple to deal with, in the soup, things can get confused easily.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
I don't think it is possible to stay current on less than 50 hours/year.

AND, that's with a high proportion of your hours flying simply as recurrency with CFI, doing those engine kills, OEI ILSs, etc. Your recurrency requires HOOD time as well as Eyes- out time.

So if you budget for 70 hours of flight a year, I suspect you will be only using half of them to go places.

I will run 200 hours this year.....I am almost never in need of instrument recurrency, but those V1 engine "cuts"....(!) they never get that old.

WHAT are they charging/hr ?
Click to expand...

Thanks, Dr. Bruce. Seventy hours a year, with maybe 40-50 as training is actually doable. I probably do 20 - 30 hours a year on those X-Cs, and the rest is flying for my pleasure, which means training and challenging myself.

The cost is fair for the area--$275, wet.

EDIT: for those of you who might think I'm rich, I'd point out that I have no other hobbies, and I don't have children.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
In the past 12 months I've flown 130 hours or so, all in the 310. I think it would be hard to fly much less and feel proficient still, although it would probably help if my flying was spaced a little closer rather than my typical 15 hours in a weekend. Definitely would plan to fly 100 hours a year in it. I would also advise doing as much of your flying in it as possible to stay proficient. Also definitely need to have some sort of recurrent training that you do.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ted! If I did do the multi, I'd completely switch to just flying the Seneca, since I don't fly hundreds of hours per year.
 
Thanks, Henning. I like your drill!

Henning said:
I train on every flight. The main thing about being safe and proficient distinguishable from a single is the thought processes. Regardless if you are flying in a single or twin, brief the takeoff for a twin as well. There is a small drill that you can do any time that will cover the main physical/muscle memory memory issue and that is while sitting and reading, watching TV, or whatever; with your arm to your side like it would be on the props or throttles hold your toes up, push down on your right foot and roll your hand to you left. Now let up your right foot and step down on your left while rolling your hand to your right. This will train your hand to coordinate with your feet in a proper "dead foot, dead engine" relationship so you will automatically be pulling the correct lever to correspondent with the dead engine. On take off my hand goes directly from the gear switch to the prop levers. This is the only 'time critical' zone to ME flying, getting the dead engine feathered when you are still in that low speed transitional phase. If you have the hand drill down, the probabilities that you're pulling the wrong lever are low, and you will hear that engine come down if you are pulling the wrong one very quickly. The whole 'verify with the throttle' to me is just a waste of time in the only time critical event and adds a point of error since even though you verified with throttle, you still have the potential to grab the wrong prop handle.

Another thing you want to burn into your brain during the training, and then redo near the beginning of each flight is when you are doing power cuts, observe the ball! Note which way it swings. VFR, engine failures are dirt simple to deal with, in the soup, things can get confused easily.
Click to expand...
 
I have come to the conclusion that currency is not the primary factor (if a factor at all) in any emergency if you have been properly trained from the beginning. The big factor in an emergency is what type of personality are you under stress. Some people when faced with death will enter a tunneled time warp of calm effectiveness with plenty of time to think and act, and some will disassociate and be calm observers of the situation as it unfolds like watching it happen to someone else. I think this is the primary non environmental determinant if you are going to live or die.

The only thing that currency and practice adds to the equation is what rote effect there maybe, and real emergencies are rarely rote events.
 
Henning said:
I have come to the conclusion that currency is not the primary factor (if a factor at all) in any emergency if you have been properly trained from the beginning. The big factor in an emergency is what type of personality are you under stress. Some people when faced with death will enter a tunneled time warp of calm effectiveness with plenty of time to think and act, and some will disassociate and be calm observers of the situation as it unfolds like watching it happen to someone else. I think this is the primary non environmental determinant if you are going to live or die.

The only thing that currency and practice adds to the equation is what rote effect there maybe, and real emergencies are rarely rote events.
Click to expand...

There is science to back this up. (Ask me about an incredibly boring research paper I did about practicing a musical instrument.)

The personality will dictate how one reacts under pressure; however, repeated drilling under realistic simulated conditions can overcome any undesirable actions.
 
I guess I would also add that your experience level will in part dictate the amount of proficiency work that is necessary. You will need more work in the first couple of years than you will need when you are more comfortable.

IMX, instrument proficiency is really the key. I have had the opportunity to check out for charter operations higher time VFR multi pilots and low time but instrument current and competent pilots to operate multiengine IFR Part 135. Hands down it is harder with the pilot who is not up to speed on the IFR.

When I was subject to having the FAA give me my six month 135 checks, sometimes with little notice, I got into the habit of practicing the precision approach anytime I landed on a runway that had one. Even if that was just turning base to final at 500' VFR and picking up the glideslope and driving it in from there. It helped me a lot.
 
spiderweb said:
Checked out the Sennie I yesterday. It is in good shape. Vintage interior, but solid 6-pack and a 430, which is fine for the panel.

MEI I spoke with there is estimating 15 hours to checkride, or 6 or seven lessons.

Confirmed plane will, in fact, be available for X-C rentals, which is really the main point.

So here's the question, which Dr. Bruce reminded me I must consider: what training regimen would be considered adequate to keep up multi skills in a Seneca? How many hours per year should be training hours, for an average pilot, to be safe and proficient?

I ask because--and I know this is a real shock--the cost is considerable.
Click to expand...

What's a "sennie"?

Is this another cool jargon name like "Bo" or "Twinkie"?
 
Pilots crash in twins for exactly the same reasons they crash singles. 98% are due to a loose nut on the yoke.
Hair trigger engine out proficiency is only necessary when losing a fan on takeoff or shortly after.
Losing a fan in any other portion of flight is only an annoyance with plenty of time to sort it out.

The rise in fatal crash statistics in twins is because the pilot somehow believes that having two engines means he can fly into weather that would kill him in a single.
This same delusional belief system also seems to be prevalent when they get a turbine - ala the recent PC12 debacle.

Go get the multi rating, you will be a better pilot for it.
 
spiderweb said:
There is science to back this up. (Ask me about an incredibly boring research paper I did about practicing a musical instrument.)

The personality will dictate how one reacts under pressure; however, repeated drilling under realistic simulated conditions can overcome any undesirable actions.
Click to expand...

But it won't overcome undesirable inaction and that is the one that gets people killed ala AF447.
 
Does anyone else here weave a simulator into their yearly reoccurring?

I only fly about 100hrs a year, so I re-visit my DPE yearly (with his FAA hat off) for reoccurring multi training. First however I do some work in the simulator.... mostly single engine approaches and stuff I might not get in the real plane. Then it's to the plane itself. Saves a little wear and tear (money to a rental) but I mostly do it because I can get more proficient before I'm doing it all again in the real plane.

Presuming no-one here see's an issue with that approach (I'm a low time ME) that might be one option to the OP to save a little coin but also make his training in the real plane more productive.
 
Jeff K said:
Does anyone else here weave a simulator into their yearly reoccurring?

I only fly about 100hrs a year, so I re-visit my DPE yearly (with his FAA hat off) for reoccurring multi training. First however I do some work in the simulator.... mostly single engine approaches and stuff I might not get in the real plane. Then it's to the plane itself. Saves a little wear and tear (money to a rental) but I mostly do it because I can get more proficient before I'm doing it all again in the real plane.

Presuming no-one here see's an issue with that approach (I'm a low time ME) that might be one option to the OP to save a little coin but also make his training in the real plane more productive.
Click to expand...

A good sim most definitely can play a vital role in training, the problem is there aren't many if any good sims for light twins. Typical sims have a much more limited roll.
 
Dr. O said:
Pilots crash in twins for exactly the same reasons they crash singles. 98% are due to a loose nut on the yoke.
Hair trigger engine out proficiency is only necessary when losing a fan on takeoff or shortly after.
Losing a fan in any other portion of flight is only an annoyance with plenty of time to sort it out.

The rise in fatal crash statistics in twins is because the pilot somehow believes that having two engines means he can fly into weather that would kill him in a single.
This same delusional belief system also seems to be prevalent when they get a turbine - ala the recent PC12 debacle.

Go get the multi rating, you will be a better pilot for it.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I also just believe that any training makes one better at what one does.
 
I find the keys to being safe is to first learn the correct way to fly the plane and respond to emergencies, then develop habits and procedures that are done every time to reinforce the training. I have a couple I use on every take off in the form of a "mantra". On take-off "on the ground - shut down, wheels down - set down, clean and right it just might (fly). Engine out - PUSH, hold heading, dead foot-dead engine, verify, feather." I also use hand position as a reinforcement. When I add power for take off the hand on the throttle is cocked over the knobs in a position to pull power off. When I move my hand to raise the gear the hand goes back in a push position to remind me to fly the airplane first. The habit is to say and do this every time I line up for take-off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top