How would you change the multiengine checkride?

[RussR]

I do a lot of multiengine instruction. Generally it's prepping applicants for add-on ratings at the Commercial level. Sometimes Private, sometimes MEIs, sometimes initial Commercials.

One thing that gets me about these checkrides is that significant time is spent working and testing on skills that aren't multiengine specific. I'm talking about steep turns, stalls, slow flight, and short field landings.

Nobody really has any issue doing these safely, as none of these maneuvers are significantly different in a twin than in a single. And in all of my cases, the applicant has already proven they can do them in at least one checkride before. Okay, for a initial commercial in a twin the standards are different than they're used to before, so okay that's fine to include there. But if the person is doing a multiengine add-on, they've already demonstrated the maneuvers to the appropriate level of proficiency in a single. Does it need to be tested again?

I'm not saying there isn't value in these maneuvers - there is. But there are a lot of valuable training maneuvers that aren't tested on checkrides.

So if I got to rewrite the ACSes, I would remove these from the checkride IF they've already demonstrated them to the same standards in a previous checkride in the same category of aircraft. Of course, then the multiengine checkride would be about 30 minutes long, maybe less. I don't see that as a problem, but it also gives an opportunity to add more engine failure scenarios, which of course is what the multiengine rating is really all about.

My opinion is biased by the fact that I do most of my training in a Seminole. I come right out and tell people that my goal is not for them to be an expert Seminole pilot, because hardly anyone buys one for personal use. My whole goal is to get them to understand multiengine aerodynamics and build in the right habits and muscle memory for the killer engine failure situations.

Many of my students go on to buy a twin, and then we do specific training in that, or they go to simulator school where they really learn the specifics of that airplane - and yes, do stalls and steep turns and whatever, because they do need to know how to do them in THAT airplane.

Same thing with type ratings - yes, include these basic maneuvers because there, you're learning how to fly a specific airplane. But for a "generic" multiengine rating, I think training and testing on the maneuvers may be wasteful, especially if there are better ways to spend that time and money.

Opinions? Would you modify the multiengine checkride if you could? How?

 

[benyflyguy]

That is a good way to look at it I think. I listen to what my one friend does to maintain proficiency for his multi- he goes to simcom every 2 years and they beat his head in with every failure scenario there is. Things you can’t quite simulate in a real environment. Most planes don’t require it but it would have to help right?! I’m working on my commercial now and plan the multi after when it comes time to commit to flying a twin routinely
I would have a hard time not following his steps even though I won’t be flying near complexity of plane he does.
if simulators like they have there were more widely available it would be nice to make them part of the check ride experience.

 

[eman1200]

change the multi checkride? nah, not really. it should be a quick, fun checkride. no need to put the DPE in 'danger' by repeatedly doing engine outs. the multi ride should be less than an hour, have a nice day, here's your rating. the comm cert is the one that should be changed. that's mostly a complete waste of time.

 

[Kritchlow]

It’s been a long time since my ME ride….
VMC demo, V1 cut (as close as you can come), shutdown, restart, SE ILS….

That about covers it. BUT…. You still need to be competent in your checkride airplane, so the ancillary stuff is needed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think the Vmc demo is a waste of time. It doesn’t resemble the way most non-trainer multi engine airplanes react, and I have yet to see someone pull back to idle when they actually lose control of the airplane.

Given the number of runway excursions due to landing long, I think “precision” landings could replace “short field”.

If steep turns weren’t a requirement, I’d feel the need to fail the flight director for an approach in order to demonstrate “mastery of the aircraft” rather than “slave to the flight director”. My bust rate would go up significantly. And pilots still struggle with steep turns…it’s not a given.

 

[RussR]

V1 cut (as close as you can come)

V1 cut - not on a piston twin in-airplane (not simulator) checkride anyway. The engine failure on takeoff roll has to be at or below 50% of Vmc. So, in a Seminole, 28 knots. Barely moving.

That about covers it. BUT…. You still need to be competent in your checkride airplane, so the ancillary stuff is needed.

I agree that "competence" is required, but for an add-on rating like this one, I'd say the ability to takeoff and land successfully, get to the practice area, and do the required engine failure maneuvers, demonstrates adequate competence for this purpose.

I think the Vmc demo is a waste of time. It doesn’t resemble the way most non-trainer multi engine airplanes react, and I have yet to see someone pull back to idle when they actually lose control of the airplane.

I agree. It's such a non-event in the Seminole. However, maybe it helps train reactions, although I have no proof either way of that.[/quote]

Given the number of runway excursions due to landing long, I think “precision” landings could replace “short field”.

But this doesn't have anything to do with "multiengine" operations. It's a valuable skill, but is pretty much the same for singles and twins.

If steep turns weren’t a requirement, I’d feel the need to fail the flight director for an approach in order to demonstrate “mastery of the aircraft” rather than “slave to the flight director”. My bust rate would go up significantly. And pilots still struggle with steep turns…it’s not a given.

People still struggle with cross country flight planning, but it's not required to be tested on an add-on rating. Same with anything else that isn't included on the additional rating task table.

 

[AggieMike88]

Interesting discussion.

@RussR, should any of your “you already did that” idea apply to obtaining your MEI?

(PS… I find it a bit scary weird that we can be granted to teach others how to fly a multi engine airplane with just 20-25 hours of maybe not even real world experience and possibly zero solo but CFI initial we need at least 250 hours)

 

[midwestpa24]

V1 cut - not on a piston twin in-airplane (not simulator) checkride anyway. The engine failure on takeoff roll has to be at or below 50% of Vmc. So, in a Seminole, 28 knots. Barely moving.

The problem with a V1 cut in a light twin is what is V1? Where is your go/no-go point? Honestly its usually gear up and able to climb for me. We no longer allow "engine failures" that low and slow in training and testing because the risk is too high, far too many accidents.

I do see value in the stalls and steep turn maneuvers in a twin. First of all it is probably most students exposure to a little heavier, faster airplane. It also helps explore the edges of the envelope for that aircraft and gain pilot confidence. That's why we include those maneuvers in almost everything, including aircraft checkouts. I also consider them a nice warm up for what's to come.

 

[RussR]

@RussR, should any of your “you already did that” idea apply to obtaining your MEI?

I don't know - I purposefully excluded MEI from my rant. But I imagine it could be similar - if MEI is an add-on rating, then no you don't have to repeat that stuff, but if it's an initial, then you do have to do it. Not as sols on this though, because a CFI of any level needs to be able to get out of whatever situation the student puts them in.

(PS… I find it a bit scary weird that we can be granted to teach others how to fly a multi engine airplane with just 20-25 hours of maybe not even real world experience and possibly zero solo but CFI initial we need at least 250 hours)

Well, the MEI requires at least 250 hours as well, it's just that most applicants already have that. I do concur with the "zero solo" requirement. I actually had zero multi solo when I got my MEI. Looking back at it now, I actually had just one multiengine flight of 3.5 hours between getting my Commercial Multi and 7 years later starting to work on my MEI. Obviously not ideal, and I have fixed that in the last few years.

Actually, to be technically correct, none of the CFI certificates have a minimum hour requirement other than 15 hours PIC in category and class. You have to have the Commercial, but there are several ways to do that, that may not result in you having 250 hours (Part 141 could be done in 190 hours, for example. Then there's military equivalency, and possibly foreign license conversion but I don't know enough about that.)

 

[MauleSkinner]

I agree. It's such a non-event in the Seminole. However, maybe it helps train reactions, although I have no proof either way of that.

Like I said, all of the evidence in my experience points to “not”.

But this doesn't have anything to do with "multiengine" operations. It's a valuable skill, but is pretty much the same for singles and twins.

Neither does preflight or engine start or normal takeoff or any number of things. But the fact is that lots of pilots can’t make normal landings. And since the multi engine rating eliminates ghe need for a flight review for a couple more years, it should evaluate normal skills.

People still struggle with cross country flight planning, but it's not required to be tested on an add-on rating. Same with anything else that isn't included on the additional rating task table.

Maybe it should.

 

[RussR]

I do see value in the stalls and steep turn maneuvers in a twin. First of all it is probably most students exposure to a little heavier, faster airplane. It also helps explore the edges of the envelope for that aircraft and gain pilot confidence. That's why we include those maneuvers in almost everything, including aircraft checkouts. I also consider them a nice warm up for what's to come.

Oh, I see value in the maneuvers, but that doesn't mean they need to be tested on in a checkride. Falling-leaf stalls are valuable but aren't on any checkride. Landing on an actual grass runway is valuable but isn't required on any checkride.

And the maneuvers are valuable in aircraft checkouts as well. But I see a difference between "aircraft checkout" and "checkride prep". It may be a fine distinction, but I see it like this:

- If you are already multi-rated and buy a Baron and ask me to teach you in it, we are going to really explore the envelope. We are going to do everything that would be on a checkride, and more. But there is no checkride at the end of the training.
- If are NOT multi-rated and buy the Baron to train in, we are still going to do everything I mentioned above. Really make you a proficient Baron pilot, because that's what you'll be flying. And there's a checkride.
- If you are just coming to me to get a multiengine rating, my real mission is to try to instill in you the proper reflexes as best I can in the event of an engine failure. So if you do happen to then jump in a Baron with no additional training, maybe, just maybe you'll survive the engine-out despite your poor decision to not seek type-specific training. I'd rather spend more training time on those situations than on steep turns and other two-engine maneuvers.

The Seminole-specific maneuvers, power settings and techniques are going to be forgotten right after the checkride. I think one main difference here is that lots of people learn in, say, a 172 and then proceed to rent the 172 to build time, or fly it solo, fly on trips, or whatever. But at least within my clientele, nobody is then renting the Seminole, or looking to buy one.

As much as I despise the situation the insurance industry has created over the last several years, this is one area where they are far ahead of the FAA. We all know that according to the FAA we can get a multi rating in a Seminole and then go buy a King Air and fly it with zero additional training. But insurance requires specific additional training, and that's a good thing.

 

[RussR]

Neither does preflight or engine start or normal takeoff or any number of things. But the fact is that lots of pilots can’t make normal landings.

Obviously the things required to get the plane in the air and back down are required to be trained on. And there would of necessity have to be at least one landing, so that requires training.

And since the multi engine rating eliminates the need for a flight review for a couple more years, it should evaluate normal skills.

That's good, I hadn't considered that angle.

Of course, a hot air balloon checkride resets your flight review as well.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Obviously the things required to get the plane in the air and back down are required to be trained on. And there would of necessity have to be at least one landing, so that requires training.

So let me throw a question back at you, Russ…if the overwhelming majority of accidents in the airplane you trained were runway overruns (they are for my airplane), and the most common reason you saw for busted checkrides was touchdown 3000-4000 feet down the runway (it is for me), how would you change your training and/or the testing standards?

 

[midwestpa24]

Oh, I see value in the maneuvers, but that doesn't mean they need to be tested on in a checkride. Falling-leaf stalls are valuable but aren't on any checkride. Landing on an actual grass runway is valuable but isn't required on any checkride.

One problem is, and I don't think its right but is reality, is that if it isn't something either required by regulation (cross-countries, night, etc.) or not covered by the checkride, it probably isn't being taught. Prospective students don't really want to waste their time and money doing things that aren't required, and most flight schools tailor their syllabus to cover the required.

 

[RussR]

One problem is, and I don't think its right but is reality, is that if it isn't something either required by regulation (cross-countries, night, etc.) or not covered by the checkride, it probably isn't being taught. Prospective students don't really want to waste their time and money doing things that aren't required, and most flight schools tailor their syllabus to cover the required.

I agree, of course. But you have to draw the line somewhere. I just think for an add-on checkride, that line should be drawn differently than for an initial checkride at that level - and it already is. It's just a question of "where" to draw the line. After all, I've never seen an examiner test the student on how to refuel an airplane, though that is important.

 

[RussR]

So let me throw a question back at you, Russ…if the overwhelming majority of accidents in the airplane you trained were runway overruns (they are for my airplane), and the most common reason you saw for busted checkrides was touchdown 3000-4000 feet down the runway (it is for me), how would you change your training and/or the testing standards?

3-4000 feet down the runway on a checkride? Then they should fail, of course. What airplane are we talking about for these examples?

Obviously at least one landing would need to be on the checkride. If they're landing that far down the runway, they fail that task just like anything else and get retraining. I don't think any of the standards need to change for that. Clearly there is a training problem though.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

the comm cert is the one that should be changed. that's mostly a complete waste of time.

Why do you think that?

 

[TCABM]

Food for thought: what if the initial ME was to commercial standards for the flying tasks?

 

[eman1200]

Why do you think that?

waaaaaaaay too many reasons to list. when was the last time a commercial operator had to perform a chandelle for real? lazy 8's?? 8's on pylon's? for real? I mean, fun maneuvers that do make you dial it in, no doubt, but for commercial? please....VFR cross country to the first waypoint? basic private stuff. the knowledge stuff seemed in line, but those maneuvers are just fun maneuvers that you most likely will never HAVE to do ever again. in my mind, the other certs and ratings actually prepare you (even at a basic level) for what you're working towards. the comm, not so much.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

waaaaaaaay too many reasons to list. when was the last time a commercial operator had to perform a chandelle for real? lazy 8's?? 8's on pylon's? for real? I mean, fun maneuvers that do make you dial it in, no doubt, but for commercial? please....VFR cross country to the first waypoint? basic private stuff. the knowledge stuff seemed in line, but those maneuvers are just fun maneuvers that you most likely will never HAVE to do ever again. in my mind, the other certs and ratings actually prepare you (even at a basic level) for what you're working towards. the comm, not so much.

I think it teaches stick and rudder. Pretty important skill for a pilot to have if people's lives are in your hands. I don't want to funnel autopilot junkies through since that's what most of "commercial flying" really is.

 

[eman1200]

I think it teaches stick and rudder. Pretty important skill for a pilot to have if people's lives are in your hands. I don't want to funnel autopilot junkies through since that's what most of "commercial flying" really is.

Stick and rudder skills are only important at the pro level? Seems kinda like a basic aspect of flying that should be taught and stressed long before comm level. Not saying the skills shouldn’t be honed throughout…

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Stick and rudder skills are only important at the pro level? Seems kinda like a basic aspect of flying that should be taught and stressed long before comm level. Not saying the skills shouldn’t be honed throughout…

I don't disagree one bit... but then the PPL gets to be pretty big and it's a big rating to begin with, so where else would you put those skills?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Obviously at least one landing would need to be on the checkride. If they're landing that far down the runway, they fail that task just like anything else and get retraining. I don't think any of the standards need to change for that. Clearly there is a training problem though.

But where is the training problem? My contention is that it starts long before they get into jets (pick any light jet, and you’ll probably see similar statistics), and “they’ve already demonstrated it” exacerbates the problem because it becomes a “checkride maneuver” rather than a “flying skill”.

I’ve flown with a lot of type-rated ATPs who consider it important to consistently fly below the level of the Private Pilot ACS except for checkride day. How does one change an attitude like that in training?

 

[eman1200]

I don't disagree one bit... but then the PPL gets to be pretty big and it's a big rating to begin with, so where else would you put those skills?

I dunno, but I'd lump it in with PPL somehow, or ppl and all future ratings. like you said, it's stick and rudder skills, those shouldn't be considered 'advanced maneuvers'. but I don't have the answer, I just don't see how 8's on pylons is a life saving maneuver, or doing a basic VFR xc to the 1st or 2nd waypoint prepares you for real world commercial flying. maybe some pro pilots can chime in on how much the comm cert actually helped them in the real world or not, since we've already hijacked the thread

 

[MauleSkinner]

I dunno, but I'd lump it in with PPL somehow, or ppl and all future ratings. like you said, it's stick and rudder skills, those shouldn't be considered 'advanced maneuvers'. but I don't have the answer, I just don't see how 8's on pylons is a life saving maneuver, or doing a basic VFR xc to the 1st or 2nd waypoint prepares you for real world commercial flying. maybe some pro pilots can chime in on how much the comm cert actually helped them in the real world or not, since we've already hijacked the thread

They are more advanced stick and rudder skills, and there is a higher expectation for professional pilots.

Currently, the overwhelming majority of pilots get their commercial after their instrument…it takes additional training to get your eyes back out of the cockpit where they belong.

Additionally, after instrument training most pilots seem to forget what little they knew about pilotage. I had two flying jobs that had me navigating complex airspace via pilotage, occasionally in pretty low weather.

Lazy 8s establish the aerodynamic knowledge that allows you to understand the emergency descent procedure in many jets…of course, the emergency descent procedure trained in most commercial curriculums counteracts that (although I did use that technique 5 times per hour at one job.)

back in the good ol’ days when I got my commercial, the VFR flight near max range of the airplane (in my case, Ames, IA, to Dallas, TX) had to be planned in 30 minutes…a realistic requirement for a professional pilot, and one that I used flying multiple VFR cross-country legs per day at one job.

8s on pylons gave me the skills to put farm sites consistently where the photographer needed them.

for starters.

And btw…Lazy 8s in a Hawker starting at 12000 feet? I

 

[Initial Fix]

When I did my multi commercial add on I couldn’t think of a more minimum set of training. Including my checkride I was well under 10 hours. Granted it helps having significant bonanza time and flying a Duchess. Even my oral covered what I thought was key information.

 

[jordane93]

I’m pretty sure I’d get myself killed if I ever go in a piston twin again. The training was good enough to pass the checkride though.

 

[Salty]

I dunno, but I'd lump it in with PPL somehow, or ppl and all future ratings. like you said, it's stick and rudder skills, those shouldn't be considered 'advanced maneuvers'. but I don't have the answer, I just don't see how 8's on pylons is a life saving maneuver, or doing a basic VFR xc to the 1st or 2nd waypoint prepares you for real world commercial flying. maybe some pro pilots can chime in on how much the comm cert actually helped them in the real world or not, since we've already hijacked the thread

8s on a pylon is supposed to be teaching you how pitch effects flight characteristics. It’s really just circle around a point using pitch instead of roll.

 

[eman1200]

8s on a pylon is supposed to be teaching you how pitch effects flight characteristics. It’s really just circle around a point using pitch instead of roll.

I know what it is, I’m just saying I’d change some things around. Like mandatory dual IMC over a vfr xc. Stuff like that.

 

[RyanShort1]

Interesting discussion.

@RussR, should any of your “you already did that” idea apply to obtaining your MEI?

(PS… I find it a bit scary weird that we can be granted to teach others how to fly a multi engine airplane with just 20-25 hours of maybe not even real world experience and possibly zero solo but CFI initial we need at least 250 hours)

We have a serious problem of rookies training rookies, but then no one wants to pay the pros enough for their time and risk... same goes for tailwheel.

 

[schmookeeg]

I don't really think the ME checkride is broken as it stands. It's just a second engine, there are aerodynamic things to go over, and OEI stuff, and procedures, and the checkride does all of that now.

I do a lot of Baron transition training and I spent a LOT of time trying to get short fields worked out, because they're nontrivial. If you bring sloppy bonanza pilot stuff to a Baron, you're going to gobble 5000' and up, which is ridiculous. The thing can do 1200 feet if energy is precisely managed. Less if you don't mind backside ops.

I like the proposal that all ME checkrides are done at the Commercial level. I could see requiring IFR too, so that the OEI approach task becomes mandatory. I can't justify these from the FAA's desk though, I just want these amateurs out of my insurance pool.

 

[RussR]

I just don't see how 8's on pylons is a life saving maneuver, ...., since we've already hijacked the thread

Aw heck, I'll help hijack my own thread. Why not?

What I don't like about 8's on pylons is I can't figure out how or why they're still legal as a training maneuver. For a ground speed of 75 knots or less, the pivotal altitude is within 500 feet of the ground. Fly a 152 at 90 knots with 15kts of wind and there you go. Even in the most sparsely populated areas, 91.119 says "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure". So that 4 ft fence you flew over? Violation. A car on the road? Violation.

 

[RussR]

But where is the training problem? My contention is that it starts long before they get into jets (pick any light jet, and you’ll probably see similar statistics), and “they’ve already demonstrated it” exacerbates the problem because it becomes a “checkride maneuver” rather than a “flying skill”.

I’ve flown with a lot of type-rated ATPs who consider it important to consistently fly below the level of the Private Pilot ACS except for checkride day. How does one change an attitude like that in training?

I'm not sure you CAN change an attitude like that. But I don't see how that problem relates to my OP, though. Landings are part of the ACS now and they're apparently doing them poorly and failing. Landings would still be a part of any modified checkride format, since the airplane does have to come down at some point, so they'd still be doing them poorly and failing.

 

[Albany Tom]

I don't know the answer, but I think I know how to find the answer. Step one, do you want to try to improve the training for pilots that will be flying piston twins and maybe turboprop twins, or do you want to improve the training for pilots going on to fly for the majors? I would suggest pick option 1, simply because it could be the most significant training those pilots receive after their commercial.

Step 2, do research to find out what fatal accidents happen more often in twins than in singles, including instruction flights. My bet is that it's partial engine failure on climb out...but I'm just guessing. Whatever it is, check that out. If it's engine failure on climb out, and for safety reasons that can't be practiced at ground level, then figure out how to test in a simulator. Or at altitude. Neither is as good as practicing the real thing, but if practicing the real thing is too dangerous, then maybe that's the best option.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm not sure you CAN change an attitude like that. But I don't see how that problem relates to my OP, though. Landings are part of the ACS now and they're apparently doing them poorly and failing. Landings would still be a part of any modified checkride format, since the airplane does have to come down at some point, so they'd still be doing them poorly and failing.

So it’s really not a training problem?

 

[thito01]

Maybe the some of the answers would be to expand on the BFR where the CFI can really get into the type of flying you really do, in the aircraft you normally fly. Most of my BFRs since 1986 have been more of the "show us that you won't kill anyone" vs. a real review of skills that I learned for a rating but have not used or practiced since the check ride.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Maybe the some of the answers would be to expand on the BFR where the CFI can really get into the type of flying you really do, in the aircraft you normally fly. Most of my BFRs since 1986 have been more of the "show us that you won't kill anyone" vs. a real review of skills that I learned for a rating but have not used or practiced since the check ride.

No expansion required…just a more competent CFI. The good ones are doing that now.

 

[iamtheari]

Aw heck, I'll help hijack my own thread. Why not?

What I don't like about 8's on pylons is I can't figure out how or why they're still legal as a training maneuver. For a ground speed of 75 knots or less, the pivotal altitude is within 500 feet of the ground. Fly a 152 at 90 knots with 15kts of wind and there you go. Even in the most sparsely populated areas, 91.119 says "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure". So that 4 ft fence you flew over? Violation. A car on the road? Violation.

I dreamed that I was taking the commercial ASEL check ride in the Champ and, thanks to dreamland arithmetic, calculated the pivotal altitude at something like 20 feet. That was a fun dream flight.

 

[Clip4]

The big thing I would makes is no aircraft with counter rotating props for the test.

 

[Zeldman]

How would you change the multiengine checkride?

Cost.??