Stupid Question about AMEL

Tantalum

Tantalum

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
9,250
Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I have scoured PART 61 and PART 91.. where are the requirements for AMEL?

Assume someone already has ASEL and instrument and has no interest in commercial.

Just looking for something like 14.CFR.61.XX

Thanks Guys!
 
To add a new class rating (which is what AMEL would be to someone who has an ASEL) is in 61.63(c).

This means that you just have to have an instructor signed off that you have been trained to the points of specific aeronautical experience (for the private it would be 61.109 ( b) and by reference the things in 61.107(b)(2), but you don't need to meet any specific times.
 
Nsconductor said:
61.107 B 2

61.109 B


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Thanks, I saw this part, but all it states is

"

(2) For an airplane category rating with a multiengine class rating:

(i) Preflight preparation;

(ii) Preflight procedures;

(iii) Airport and seaplane base operations;

(iv) Takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds;

(v) Performance maneuvers;

(vi) Ground reference maneuvers;

(vii) Navigation;

(viii) Slow flight and stalls;

(ix) Basic instrument maneuvers;

(x) Emergency operations;

(xi) Multiengine operations;

(xii) Night operations, except as provided in § 61.110 of this part; and

(xiii) Postflight procedures.
"

..this can't be all of it.. I was under the impression that you needed 3 hrs dual, etc., and the private pilot stuff above it doesn't mention anything about 40 hrs, etc.

Is a multi really as easy as "go fly with an instructor, get trained, get an examiner sign off, and go take the checkride" ?? No other requirements as far as a knowledge test, or any kind of hours, etc. What about kinds of operation like single engine ILS, etc. The other sections for trainings have a ton of detail, somehow the AMEL seems "too easy to be true"

but maybe it is?
 
flyingron said:
To add a new class rating (which is what AMEL would be to someone who has an ASEL) is in 61.63(c).

This means that you just have to have an instructor signed off that you have been trained to the points of specific aeronautical experience (for the private it would be 61.109 ( b) and by reference the things in 61.107(b)(2), but you don't need to meet any specific times.
Click to expand...
Thanks.. so it really is as easy as what I quoted below. Why did I think there was a requirement for at least 3 hrs dual instruction? I understand it will take about 10 hrs, but I had someone reference 3 hrs.. and I'm trying to validate that

"
(c) Additional aircraft class rating. A person who applies for an additional class rating on a pilot certificate:

(1) Must have a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor attesting that the person was found competent in the appropriate aeronautical knowledge areas and proficient in the appropriate areas of operation.

(2) Must pass the practical test.

(3) Need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought; unless, the person only holds a lighter-than-air category rating with a balloon class rating and is seeking an airship class rating, then that person must receive the specified training time requirements and possess the appropriate aeronautical experience.

(4) Need not take an additional knowledge test, provided the applicant holds an airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, weight-shift-control aircraft, powered parachute, or airship rating at that pilot certificate level.
"
 
MauleSkinner said:
Check out the ACS for the tasks required.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I have that tab open and clicked through what I thought was everything and found no mention of "multi" - perhaps it's buried in some "class" section, but I was hoping for a specific link or resource

For how "common" a multi is (at least in the school world) I'm surprised how hard it is to find. All the PPL, IR, comm stuff is easy to find.

Where below should I look? Does someone have a link?
upload_2020-9-25_14-1-57.png
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks.. so it really is as easy as what I quoted below. Why did I think there was a requirement for at least 3 hrs dual instruction? I understand it will take about 10 hrs, but I had someone reference 3 hrs.. and I'm trying to validate that
Click to expand...

The 3 hours comes from the "prepare for the practical test" requirement, ie, 61.129 b 3 v
 
Also, I found the ACS portion under the private pilot PDF (wouldn't think to look there) page 58. Thanks @MauleSkinner

I guess I'm just surprised with how "straightforward" the multi- seems.
 
It was my easiest checkride by far. 2 flights, then a DPE ride.

I don't believe the 3 hours even comes into play for an add-on to existing rating, although that's largely academic since I doubt many MEIs do an entire add-on in less than 3 hours.
 
schmookeeg said:
The 3 hours comes from the "prepare for the practical test" requirement, ie, 61.129 b 3 v
Click to expand...
I saw that but I thought 61.129 multi-engine was specific to commercial
 
schmookeeg said:
It was my easiest checkride by far. 2 flights, then a DPE ride.
Click to expand...
Nice. I started working with a CFI towards this. As much as I love the Cirrus to me (at least) the chute can't replace the redundancy of a second engine.. and I do often have four people in the plane which makes W&B and fuel planning a fine art of excel spreadsheeting and packing as light as possible. Something like an Aztec would add a level of comfort flying over mountains and water.. and alleviate a bit of the WB issues I find currently in the SR22
 
In your scenario, the applicant holds a private pilot certificate with airplane, single engine land ratings and an instrument airplane rating (PP-ASEL-IA).

This applicant seeks to add an airplane, multiengine land rating to his or her private pilot certificate.

This is not a private pilot practical test. This is performed under 14 CFR 61.63(c), additional aircraft class rating. Note that for the purposes of adding this particular rating, the applicant "need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought."

Also note that per 14 CFR 61.63(c)(4) the applicant "... need not take an additional knowledge test."

Other than 14 CFR 61.39(a)(6)(i) and (ii)'s requirement that the applicant must "... have an endorsement, if required by this part, in the applicant's logbook or training record that has been signed by an authorized instructor who certifies that the applicant (i) Has received and logged training time within 2 calendar months preceding the month of application in preparation for the practical test; (ii) Is prepared for the required practical test" there are no specific aeronautical experience requirements which must be satisfied.

Therefore the Private Pilot - Airplane ACS applies referencing the Additional Rating Task Table on page A-12. I.e. private pilot standards are applied to this additional aircraft class rating practical test.

Hope this helps,
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
Again, there's no time requirement, three hours or anything else. All you have to do is have enough time that the instructor signs you off to meet the requirement of 61.63(c)(1).
 
I may have muddied things terribly -- I was trying to explain where the "3 hours" reference came from, not that it applied to an add-on. Sorry. :oops:
 
Don’t forget your insurance gets a vote. Your carrier may require something like 15 hours of duel received before you can act as PIC in the ME, then maybe another 10 hours solo PIC before you can carry passengers.
 
Tantalum said:
Nice. I started working with a CFI towards this. As much as I love the Cirrus to me (at least) the chute can't replace the redundancy of a second engine.. and I do often have four people in the plane which makes W&B and fuel planning a fine art of excel spreadsheeting and packing as light as possible. Something like an Aztec would add a level of comfort flying over mountains and water.. and alleviate a bit of the WB issues I find currently in the SR22
Click to expand...
Per hour doesn't it double the chances of an engine failure with comparable maintenance on the engines? And there are a few folks that have a false comfort level with that second engine. I have always thought that a person should fly more than I do to be truly safer in a twin. If I have an engine out in my single it will land slow enough that in most situations everyone will be safe unless, as you are concerned, in the mountains or at night. Since I am a flat lander I prefer the high performance single for my activities. I never seem to have a need to fill the fifth or sixth seat which could also make a difference too.
 
Briar Rabbit said:
Per hour doesn't it double the chances of an engine failure with comparable maintenance on the engines? And there are a few folks that have a false comfort level with that second engine. I have always thought that a person should fly more than I do to be truly safer in a twin. If I have an engine out in my single it will land slow enough that in most situations everyone will be safe unless, as you are concerned, in the mountains or at night. Since I am a flat lander I prefer the high performance single for my activities. I never seem to have a need to fill the fifth or sixth seat which could also make a difference too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I recall the statistical math being funny -- something something gets squared in a multi-engine plane. I think it's overwhelmingly more likely that the pilot pooches things when an engine surprises him. No defense for that other than frequent training and practice with an evil friend who likes pulling levers on you.

I totally agree with you -- If I flew less than, say, 50-75 hours a year, no way would I fly a twin. I wouldn't feel competent.

Trouble with the single is the engine cares not if it puts you into a nice field or a rocky slope. I have lotsa tree-covered rocks near me, so that biases me into the twin. I miss the simplicity of my Bonanza, but so far (touch wood), the baron is just as good, with double the climb rate and payload and avgas bill and and and.... :D

I still daydream about owning 1/3 of a turbine instead of 1/1 of a piston twin. I think it would be a lot cheaper. Hard to find two like-minded blokes out this way, though.
 
@Tantalum , it really can be that easy as an add-on to your existing level of certificate. I've been doing almost solely multiengine training for the last couple of months. And yes, it's as simple as "train to proficiency in the ACS maneuvers". No knowledge test, no "plan a XC flight" for the oral, no time requirements.

The oral generally consists of what you'd expect - discussion of multiengine aerodynamics, and knowledge of the systems in your airplane, and maybe a few other things.

The flight consists of some very familiar two-engine maneuvers like steep turns, slow flight, and stalls, and some single-engine maneuvers like engine failures, Vmc demo, and a single-engine approach.

The dedicated schools will often do this in something like a 4-day course. Come on out to Oklahoma City and we can do just that!
 
Briar Rabbit said:
Per hour doesn't it double the chances of an engine failure with comparable maintenance on the engines? And there are a few folks that have a false comfort level with that second engine. I have always thought that a person should fly more than I do to be truly safer in a twin. If I have an engine out in my single it will land slow enough that in most situations everyone will be safe unless, as you are concerned, in the mountains or at night. Since I am a flat lander I prefer the high performance single for my activities. I never seem to have a need to fill the fifth or sixth seat which could also make a difference too.
Click to expand...
sure, having two engines doubles the likelihood that you'll have an engine failure and having four would make it even higher. But it's going to be almost statistically impossible to lose them both on the same flight.. yes it requires more competence, but objectively speaking having a second engine out there will assure that you still have some power left even if you lose an engine.. in a single engine you're guaranteed to be landing somewhere basically immediately. I think a lot of people assume they'll be able to safely put it down on a road or a field, but plenty of people wreck airplanes after an engine failure.. it's very easy in your head to picture a perfect scenario where you glide down onto a road, the reality of it is that road is going to have power lines and signs and you're not going to know exactly how the plane is going to react with zero power. Plenty people end up in a house or in the trees fatal

schmookeeg said:
If I flew less than, say, 50-75 hours a year, no way would I fly a twin. I wouldn't feel competent.
Click to expand...
Yes! I fly between 100 and 150 hours a year, even this feels like a minimum to me.. the plan is to log most, if not all, of that in a multi. even if I won't be using all six seats it'll be nice to know that I can easily fit four people and full tanks without any major weight and balance issue in most cases.. and at least in something like an Aztec or Seneca the cabin is very comfortable

RussR said:
Come on out to Oklahoma City and we can do just that!
Click to expand...
Thanks! I found someone here actually who has a 3-day course that will get me a minimum of 12 hours..! But I'd like to put at least 20 on the plane within the first month of being multi so I'll be planning some longer trips
 
It's not quite double. You take the inverse odds of the engine failing and square it. The closer to 0% chance of a single engine failure is very close to, but not quite double. The more likely the engines are to fail, the further from double the odds it gets.
 
You all make things too complicated. You just train until you are proficient for these checkrides. Hours are meaningless.
 
Direct enter enter and keep one hand on the red handle?
 
The stats math on twins is fun. But the reality is you don’t care if you lose an engine if your odds of making it safely to an airport with the remaining one are high.

The odds in a single are a lot lower usually. :)

Proficiency and training and performance numbers change that “making it to an airport safely” thing in the twin.

The insurance actuaries have the best numbers really, for things that fly at similar speeds. Adjust for aircraft price and it’s not a massive difference. They know the bet they’re making to turn a profit.

Always a good place to start when assessing a risk. How insurance views it is usually somewhere someone has spent a lot of time and effort running the numbers. If they’re waaaay wrong they go bankrupt and don’t eat.
 
Do it... its just money. I did this two years ago in a be55 to pts standards not acs it took three days its just one flight with the examiner. Dont mess it up.... I was fresh off my tailwheel endorsement few months prior which is when after 8 years on trikes I learned about what the rudder can do. The rudder is critical in twins. I had around 40-50hrs flying a be58tc with a very experienced friend prior. It was HARD but I progressed tremendously. Remember if u give a mouse a cookie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top