Multi-Engine Training...

[gismo]

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.

Personally, except when losing one engine very shortly after liftoff (i.e. close to the ground), closing both throttles when one quits seems like overkill even if the plan is to land straight ahead. Of course if the best landing area is close, you want to get rid of all thrust to help you get down as quickly as possible but otherwise leaving some power on the good engine will allow much more control of airspeed and descent rate than you get with both engines off. And in most light twins I've flown, at 70% power or less Vmc will be substantially lower than stall speed.

I also don't see a problem with attempting to fly on one engine (at full power) as long as you can maintain Vyse if the terrain in the immediate vicinity is hostile. IOW I think a competent PP-AMEL should be able to keep the plane right side up without removing the asymmetrical thrust simply by accepting the loss of altitude necessary to stay in control of bank and direction.

 

[TMetzinger]

Personally, except when losing one engine very shortly after liftoff (i.e. close to the ground), closing both throttles when one quits seems like overkill even if the plan is to land straight ahead. Of course if the best landing area is close, you want to get rid of all thrust to help you get down as quickly as possible but otherwise leaving some power on the good engine will allow much more control of airspeed and descent rate than you get with both engines off. And in most light twins I've flown, at 70% power or less Vmc will be substantially lower than stall speed.

My rationale at the time was:

• I knew the airplane wouldn't even maintain altitude on one engine at full power in that atmosphere - it really was a dog
• I wanted to commit to a plan of action before I ever took off and not second-guess myself in the air.
• I didn't want the risk of losing control by trying for just that LITTLE more back pressure single-engine.

This was in many ways an effort to compensate for my lack of experience with Multi-engine flying, and to ensure I had a plan that if followed I'd have a good chance of walking away.

I also don't see a problem with attempting to fly on one engine (at full power) as long as you can maintain Vyse if the terrain in the immediate vicinity is hostile. IOW I think a competent PP-AMEL should be able to keep the plane right side up without removing the asymmetrical thrust simply by accepting the loss of altitude necessary to stay in control of bank and direction.

I agree - at or above a reasonable altitude. At less than 1000 AGL (and descending) that ground starts looking mighty close and the temptation to pull back gets awfully strong. As I said, in the winter (when the airplane would climb on one) and in different airplanes (which could climb on one), I'd have no problem maintaining Vyse and taking however many miles necessary to climb.

 

[Ted]

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.

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

In the Aztec I'm never off the ground before Vyse (100 mph), other than in ground effect. That plane simply does not want to climb that way. In the 310 I may be off the ground before Vyse (120 mph), but accelerate past it quickly before actually climbing, and would still land and stop if one quit then (and this is in a Colemill 310 with 300 hp a side). So first off, if a pilot is actually trying to start the climb out before Vyse (other than initially getting the wheels off the ground and perhaps very shallow climb out), I would argue that is poor technique and bad instructing. I don't pull the wheels up until I'm ready to establish my climb, by which point I'm past Vyse.

But as you then pointed out, all those decisions are made prior to pushing the throttles forward for takeoff. So really, the pilot should have already made the thought process and decision prior. A good part of training is to take a student up with a realistic load. My instructor and I did that in the Aztec several times, so I learned just what it did to it. It was good to watch and see. And I wouldn't say that it's overpowered and can climb itself out of anything. The 310 is pretty close, but the Aztec on a hot day with full load will have a rough time of climbing. Just fine time cruising, but climbing is harder.

 

[bbchien]

I fail any ME candidate whose predeparture brief doesn't include landing in the trees/fence/corn if he loses one below Vyse.

And that is all......

 

[jasc15]

Total non-sequitur here, but I felt I should share. I was reading the wikipedia article on the Beech Travel Air, and it says that one intended name for it was the Badger, but since NATO had assigned that name to the Tu-16, they stuck with Travel Air. Now, I have a thing for Soviet bombers, so I clicked that article. Apparently, Indonesia was one other nation to operate the Badger, and hoped to use it during the take over of Western New Guinea in 1960. This led me to read on about the history of New Guinea. It's great to have a back button to allow you to trace your train of thought.

 

[ApacheBob]

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.

I loved my Apache! It was the 160-horse variety.
This thread has gone in a couple interesting directions. But, back to your original idea, I totally agree with Lance. I put 300 fantastic hours on the Apache. I flew some actual IFR with it. It was a blast.
But I should have gotten my SE commercial, first. Then, I could have gone to Tom Brady's and got the multi.
BTW, we had a sensor problem with the gear at the end of my check ride, so my multi checkout was very realistic!

 

[gismo]

My rationale at the time was:

• I knew the airplane wouldn't even maintain altitude on one engine at full power in that atmosphere - it really was a dog
• I wanted to commit to a plan of action before I ever took off and not second-guess myself in the air.
• I didn't want the risk of losing control by trying for just that LITTLE more back pressure single-engine.

This was in many ways an effort to compensate for my lack of experience with Multi-engine flying, and to ensure I had a plan that if followed I'd have a good chance of walking away.

OK. First, I have no problem with and fully believe in forming a plan for an engine loss before starting the takeoff roll, that enhances your chances of "doing the right thing" substantially. And I wasn't questioning your intention of an off airport landing if an engine quit before you reached pattern altitude (that's very conservative to me but probably a very good plan for anyone with low multi time). My main concern with your statement (which resembles what I hear a lot WRT landing a twin off airport when one engine quits early in the takeoff) that you'd close both throttles (not your exact words) and land. My point is that it's both safe and appropriate to use partial power as necessary to manage your descent and subsequent emergency landing rather than compounding the problem of one engine quitting by completely powering down the other one and turning the plane into a lousy glider. Now if you were already starting to lose roll/yaw control, it is appropriate to briefly close both throttles as you unload the wings and regain control but you can increase the power on the still working engine (carefully) as the speed builds and give yourself more options WRT how fast you're descending and where you touch down.

I agree - at or above a reasonable altitude. At less than 1000 AGL (and descending) that ground starts looking mighty close and the temptation to pull back gets awfully strong. As I said, in the winter (when the airplane would climb on one) and in different airplanes (which could climb on one), I'd have no problem maintaining Vyse and taking however many miles necessary to climb.

Again, I don't want to dispute what you feel is an appropriate altitude to consider attempting flight on one engine, that's dependent on the airplane, the conditions, and the pilot's experience and comfort level (i.e a personal decision). But for me in my airplane, once I have the wheels up and 100 KIAS on the ASI (Vyse) I'll make the attempt as long as there's not enough runway left that a safe landing there is assured. But while making the attempt, I'm ready and willing to sacrifice altitude to maintain Vyse and/or control even if that means an off airport landing. And during the landing I will be reducing speed and power so I can land with minimum forward speed and under control, but I won't be chopping the power on my good engine the instant I switch from continue to land mode unless I can see that landing shorter has an advantage.

I'm stressing the "don't chop the power" issue because it seems that there's a common misunderstanding about when/where that's necessary. If you need to reduce power to maintain roll control do it. And if you've already lost control (the airplane is rolling despite full control deflection to oppose it) then you should remove all power until control is re-established but that doesn't in any way mean that you need to leave the good engine idling when more power would help and the speed is high enough for the power applied.

 

[ajstoner21]

I got a multi-engine rating and a complex endorsement in a Piper Seminole.

I started my multi-engine training with zero complex time at about 54 total hours and was able to get the complex endorsement and pass the checkride at my 60 hour mark.

I have not flown multi-engine since and am no way safe to fly one again without more instructor time, but it is possible to it in short time.

I have a restriction to VFR flight. My limitation says "Holder does not meet instrument flight requirements of ICAO"

Some say to do your instrument training first and then when you take your multi-engine checkride, you can have instrument priveledges right away.

I spoke with instructors at ATP (Airline Transport Professionals) and for professional pilots, they recommend doing multi-engine before instrument, that way, you can do your instrument training in a multi-engine aircraft, take your instrument checkride in a multi-engine aircraft and all that time now counts as PIC in twin. And airlines love multi-engine time.

 

[bbchien]

The KEY question for any operation is, "what is V1 today in our condition?". A lot of multi pilots don't understand that. Without knowing precisely what V1 is, the predeparture briefing is the next best thing.....

 

[poadeleted20]

In the Aztec I'm never off the ground before Vyse (100 mph), other than in ground effect. That plane simply does not want to climb that way.

Well, my thousand or so hours in the Aztec were mostly a long time ago, but we rotated at 85 mph (Vmc+5) and the airplane climbed and accelerated just fine. I'd grab the gear reaching 102 mph (Vyse) because loaded up the way we flew them for 135 ops, if you lost one before then, you were never going to accelerate to Vyse even with the gear already up, and we wanted the option of plopping it back on the runway. Once up and clean, accelerate to 120 mph (Vy) to 400 feet, and then pick up cruise climb (135 mph) and power back to 26/24. While Ted's idea of accelerating to Vyse enhances safety after liftoff, it also takes a lot more runway and increases distance over obstacles, not to mention increased tire wear (a concern at a company as cheap as the one for which I flew back then). In any event, our company manual called for the technique I described, so that's what we did.

 

[Richard]

Well, my thousand or so hours in the Aztec were mostly a long time ago, but we rotated at 85 mph (Vmc+5) and the airplane climbed and accelerated just fine. I'd grab the gear reaching 102 mph (Vyse) because loaded up the way we flew them for 135 ops, if you lost one before then, you were never going to accelerate to Vyse even with the gear already up, and we wanted the option of plopping it back on the runway. Once up and clean, accelerate to 120 mph (Vy) to 400 feet, and then pick up cruise climb (135 mph) and power back to 26/24. While Ted's idea of accelerating to Vyse enhances safety after liftoff, it also takes a lot more runway and increases distance over obstacles, not to mention increased tire wear (a concern at a company as cheap as the one for which I flew back then). In any event, our company manual called for the technique I described, so that's what we did.

Could that be the explanation why a certain outfit on the east coast flying 402s tucks 'em into the wells ASAP after breaking ground on takeoff?

 

[poadeleted20]

I started my multi-engine training with zero complex time at about 54 total hours and was able to get the complex endorsement and pass the checkride at my 60 hour mark.

I have not flown multi-engine since and am no way safe to fly one again without more instructor time, but it is possible to it in short time.

I've seen such programs many times before, and they usually involve an in-house or otherwise tame examiner, and essentially train you to fly the test and that's about it. If you want to know what the school thinks of the quality of their training, ask them if they'll let you rent the plane immediately after the checkride to go fly somewhere for lunch solo to celebrate passing the test. If they say "no," that ought to tell you something.

 

[poadeleted20]

Could that be the explanation why a certain outfit on the east coast flying 402s tucks 'em into the wells ASAP after breaking ground on takeoff?

I have no idea why they do that. I have no 402 time, but that same outfit I mentioned had one C-401, and I was the only pilot in it my last few months there, and I made darn sure I had plenty of speed before retracting the wheels in that baby -- way less docile on one engine than the Aztec -- 300 lb in each wing tip gives it a lot of yaw inertia.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The KEY question for any operation is, "what is V1 today in our condition?". A lot of multi pilots don't understand that. Without knowing precisely what V1 is, the predeparture briefing is the next best thing.....

But in most situations, where runway length >> accelerate-stop distance, would'nt V1 just be Vyse on most small twins? There's no published V1 charts on most of them anyway.

 

[ajstoner21]

I would have been allowed to if I met their 10 hour minimum ME time requirement. At least thats what they said. Whether or not that was an excuse to not let me fly it right after my checkride or not, I don't know.

 

[LearDriver]

I have no idea why they do that. I have no 402 time, but that same outfit I mentioned had one C-401, and I was the only pilot in it my last few months there, and I made darn sure I had plenty of speed before retracting the wheels in that baby -- way less docile on one engine than the Aztec -- 300 lb in each wing tip gives it a lot of yaw inertia.

As well as a smaller rudder panel as compared to the 402's.

 

[Ted]

In the Aztec I'm never off the ground before Vyse (100 mph), other than in ground effect. That plane simply does not want to climb that way.

Well, my thousand or so hours in the Aztec were mostly a long time ago, but we rotated at 85 mph (Vmc+5) and the airplane climbed and accelerated just fine. I'd grab the gear reaching 102 mph (Vyse) because loaded up the way we flew them for 135 ops, if you lost one before then, you were never going to accelerate to Vyse even with the gear already up, and we wanted the option of plopping it back on the runway. Once up and clean, accelerate to 120 mph (Vy) to 400 feet, and then pick up cruise climb (135 mph) and power back to 26/24. While Ted's idea of accelerating to Vyse enhances safety after liftoff, it also takes a lot more runway and increases distance over obstacles, not to mention increased tire wear (a concern at a company as cheap as the one for which I flew back then). In any event, our company manual called for the technique I described, so that's what we did.

Note the bold. Sure, I'll rotate at 85 mph and get the wheels off the ground, but in my 600 hours of Aztec time in the past 20 months (since we're pulling out the logbooks) saying that it'll climb just fine is being, at best, generous. Additionally, there aren't any runways in the east that you'd reasonably operate out of (including sub-3000 ft ones on hot summer days) where getting to 100 mph would really hurt you. Having just had my tire change at 800 hours on the tires, they seem to have held up alright to my use.

High altitudes are more problematic and you will eat up more runway, but trying to effectively climb out prior to Vyse in my experience is only going to leave you wondering why those trees are getting closer but no lower.

 

[poadeleted20]

But in most situations, where runway length >> accelerate-stop distance, would'nt V1 just be Vyse on most small twins? There's no published V1 charts on most of them anyway.

No, it wouldn't, because V1 guarantees climbout over obstructions even if one engine then fails, while Vyse does not. Also, I'll bet there's lots of light twin flying where the distance to accelerate to liftoff speed and then cut the engines and stop is a lot longer than the available runway. Likewise, I'll bet there's lots of light twin flying where an engine failure at liftoff will prevent safe clearance of obstacles. Heck, I've flown my old Cougar out of airports whose elevation is above the plane's single-engine service ceiling. Only difference between flying a twin versus flying a single in that situation is you have twice as much chance of not making it over the trees.

 

[poadeleted20]

Note the bold. Sure, I'll rotate at 85 mph and get the wheels off the ground,

OK, then I think we're on the same page -- get it airborne, accelerate to Vyse climbing to about 50 feet, then retract the gear and climb out while continuing to accelerate. I thought you were saying you'd keep it on the ground to Vyse, and that was apparently my mistake.

 

[tonycondon]

Could that be the explanation why a certain outfit on the east coast flying 402s tucks 'em into the wells ASAP after breaking ground on takeoff?

When I was flying the 421 I would basically retract the gear as soon as I was airborne. I figured it was doing me any favors and on most of the runways I flew off of unless the engine quit right at liftoff or very shortly after that I was going off the end anyway.

 

[poadeleted20]

...on most of the runways I flew off of unless the engine quit right at liftoff or very shortly after that I was going off the end anyway.

Always a good idea in making this decision to know whether your retractable plane's manual recommends off-runway landings with gear up or gear down. Also, know whether you get a lot of extra drag on retraction, like on the Cessna retractable singles with big gear doors.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The KEY question for any operation is, "what is V1 today in our condition?". A lot of multi pilots don't understand that. Without knowing precisely what V1 is, the predeparture briefing is the next best thing.....

?????

V1, by definition, is not a speed applicable to the vast majority of light twins out there.

Not sure what distinction you are trying to make between V1 and a predeparture briefing. You should be doing a pre-departure briefing whether the a/c has a V1 speed or not.

 

[Fearless Tower]

My main concern with your statement (which resembles what I hear a lot WRT landing a twin off airport when one engine quits early in the takeoff) that you'd close both throttles (not your exact words) and land. My point is that it's both safe and appropriate to use partial power as necessary to manage your descent and subsequent emergency landing rather than compounding the problem of one engine quitting by completely powering down the other one and turning the plane into a lousy glider. Now if you were already starting to lose roll/yaw control, it is appropriate to briefly close both throttles as you unload the wings and regain control but you can increase the power on the still working engine (carefully) as the speed builds and give yourself more options WRT how fast you're descending and where you touch down.

Gimso makes a good point - typical multi-engine training is to emphasize that if you lose an engine before before a pre-determined point (red line or gear up) that you should immediately close both throttles and make a controlled landing relatively straight ahead.

BUT, suddenly pulling all power off isn't necessarily the best course of action. Here is an example why (and while it was not a twin, it still illustrates the basic aerodynamic issues): I experienced an engine problem on takeoff in a 177RG. Engine instruments appeared fine on the takeoff roll, but engine was not producing full power - it seemed to take a bit longer to reach Vr and once airborne the plane just wanted to mush. At about 25' AGL or so (gear still down - runway remaining) I made the decision to abort......but like my training, in that split second, I did so by lowering my pitch attitude and pulling all power off - the plane dropped like a ROCK. I had JUST enough time to recognize what was happening and add a burst of power to minimize descent before touchdown.

My point (and I belive Gismo's as well) is that a twin will behave no differently (possibly even worse) if you just suddenly wipe all power out. Use what power you have available to make the controlled landing.

 

[TMetzinger]

The KEY question for any operation is, "what is V1 today in our condition?". A lot of multi pilots don't understand that. Without knowing precisely what V1 is, the predeparture briefing is the next best thing.....

I know what V1 means in airplanes (like transport category) that have published accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distances. But none of the airplanes normally used for ME training have this data and don't have published V1 (or V2) speeds.

So I'm not sure how an ME student would answer that question.

Unless - reading what you've said again - you're saying that the predeparture briefing with something like "failure below XXX feet or XXX knots, maintain aircraft control and land straight ahead" is as good as it gets without the balanced field requirements that ensure you don't take to the air at an unsafe speed.

 

[TMetzinger]

Gimso makes a good point - typical multi-engine training is to emphasize that if you lose an engine before before a pre-determined point (red line or gear up) that you should immediately close both throttles and make a controlled landing relatively straight ahead.

BUT, suddenly pulling all power off isn't necessarily the best course of action. Here is an example why (and while it was not a twin, it still illustrates the basic aerodynamic issues): I experienced an engine problem on takeoff in a 177RG. Engine instruments appeared fine on the takeoff roll, but engine was not producing full power - it seemed to take a bit longer to reach Vr and once airborne the plane just wanted to mush. At about 25' AGL or so (gear still down - runway remaining) I made the decision to abort......but like my training, in that split second, I did so by lowering my pitch attitude and pulling all power off - the plane dropped like a ROCK. I had JUST enough time to recognize what was happening and add a burst of power to minimize descent before touchdown.

My point (and I belive Gismo's as well) is that a twin will behave no differently (possibly even worse) if you just suddenly wipe all power out. Use what power you have available to make the controlled landing.

I agree with this, but I wonder if there isn't another factor behind teaching pilots to close both throttles.

When I was in the Coast Guard, I had a chance to talk with some folks from other services, and at one of our BS sessions one of the Army guys had been a Drill Instructor on a previous tour. He explained that the reason behind the "right way, wrong way, ARMY way" they used in training is that even though the method taught to accomplish something might not be the most effective/efficient/elegant way to do it, experience taught that it was the method that would get the job done AND could be reliably taught to the trainees with their wide range of backgrounds and cultures, and that would stick with them when they needed it.

Perhaps the "pull both throttles and glide" is the same way - provides the best outcome across the whole range of ME pilots. While the way I fly ME now is much closer to what Lance and Fearless recommend, I'm a lot less task-saturated during the takeoff roll and climb than I was when I was first learning, just because of the added experience and familiarity. I think other things in aviation are the same way - we tighten tolerances as folks progress from the private to the commercial, we teach a ton of additional stuff in instrument training, and we look for more polish as time goes on.

A good discussion, and I thank everyone who participated - it's always useful to kick around differences in technique and such about fundamental stuff. I also notice that we usually end up at the same universal answer - "It depends".

 

[wabower]

It may have already been mentioned, but my impression of the "pull them both back" mantra was to eliminate the VMC roll problem. Any reduction in power will normally reduce VMC (as defined) by some amount, so maybe the advice should be amended accordingly. VMC in a lightly loaded airplane with forward CG will (usually) will be significantly different lower than the book number anyway, but even in the best case the pilot has many factors to consider and very little time to act on any of them.

OK. First, I have no problem with and fully believe in forming a plan for an engine loss before starting the takeoff roll, that enhances your chances of "doing the right thing" substantially. And I wasn't questioning your intention of an off airport landing if an engine quit before you reached pattern altitude (that's very conservative to me but probably a very good plan for anyone with low multi time). My main concern with your statement (which resembles what I hear a lot WRT landing a twin off airport when one engine quits early in the takeoff) that you'd close both throttles (not your exact words) and land. My point is that it's both safe and appropriate to use partial power as necessary to manage your descent and subsequent emergency landing rather than compounding the problem of one engine quitting by completely powering down the other one and turning the plane into a lousy glider. Now if you were already starting to lose roll/yaw control, it is appropriate to briefly close both throttles as you unload the wings and regain control but you can increase the power on the still working engine (carefully) as the speed builds and give yourself more options WRT how fast you're descending and where you touch down.


Again, I don't want to dispute what you feel is an appropriate altitude to consider attempting flight on one engine, that's dependent on the airplane, the conditions, and the pilot's experience and comfort level (i.e a personal decision). But for me in my airplane, once I have the wheels up and 100 KIAS on the ASI (Vyse) I'll make the attempt as long as there's not enough runway left that a safe landing there is assured. But while making the attempt, I'm ready and willing to sacrifice altitude to maintain Vyse and/or control even if that means an off airport landing. And during the landing I will be reducing speed and power so I can land with minimum forward speed and under control, but I won't be chopping the power on my good engine the instant I switch from continue to land mode unless I can see that landing shorter has an advantage.

I'm stressing the "don't chop the power" issue because it seems that there's a common misunderstanding about when/where that's necessary. If you need to reduce power to maintain roll control do it. And if you've already lost control (the airplane is rolling despite full control deflection to oppose it) then you should remove all power until control is re-established but that doesn't in any way mean that you need to leave the good engine idling when more power would help and the speed is high enough for the power applied.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know what V1 means in airplanes (like transport category) that have published accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distances. But none of the airplanes normally used for ME training have this data and don't have published V1 (or V2) speeds.

So I'm not sure how an ME student would answer that question.

S/he couldn't. However, Bruce was brought up on ME in transport-category airplanes, so he still says "V1" even when he just means "go/no-go decision speed." And he's right about having such an engine failure go/no-go speed in mind on every light twin takeoff. As for what to do with the throttles, you do whatever it takes to first, maintain directional control (because a rollover will definitely kill you at that point on takeoff), and second, control the descent back to earth (a hard landing being better than a cartwheel).

 

[gismo]

But in most situations, where runway length >> accelerate-stop distance, would'nt V1 just be Vyse on most small twins? There's no published V1 charts on most of them anyway.

Technically, V1 doesn't really exist since it isn't published. The concept of V1 is a speed below liftoff where there's enough speed to get off the ground and cleaned up while continuing to accelerate to Vyse and subsequently clear a FAA standard obstacle at the end of the runway that meets the published balanced field requirements.In most light twins V1 at MGW would be well above Vyse+5 if it were published and from a practical perspective it's easier to let the plane tell you when you're "good to go" by it's reaching Vyse at some point during the takeoff, preferably with the gear retracted. But you must realize that this requires more runway for a truly "balanced field" than what the POH says.

 

[Ted]

Technically, V1 doesn't really exist since it isn't published. The concept of V1 is a speed below liftoff where there's enough speed to get off the ground and cleaned up while continuing to accelerate to Vyse and subsequently clear a FAA standard obstacle at the end of the runway that meets the published balanced field requirements.In most light twins V1 at MGW would be well above Vyse+5 if it were published and from a practical perspective it's easier to let the plane tell you when you're "good to go" by it's reaching Vyse at some point during the takeoff, preferably with the gear retracted. But you must realize that this requires more runway for a truly "balanced field" than what the POH says.

Well said.

 

[poadeleted20]

Technically, V1 doesn't really exist since it isn't published. The concept of V1 is a speed below liftoff where there's enough speed to get off the ground and cleaned up while continuing to accelerate to Vyse and subsequently clear a FAA standard obstacle at the end of the runway that meets the published balanced field requirements.In most light twins V1 at MGW would be well above Vyse+5 if it were published and from a practical perspective it's easier to let the plane tell you when you're "good to go" by it's reaching Vyse at some point during the takeoff, preferably with the gear retracted. But you must realize that this requires more runway for a truly "balanced field" than what the POH says.

Also realize that for light twins, unless you're light or low, there probably isn't a "speed below liftoff where there's enough speed to get off the ground and cleaned up while continuing to accelerate to Vyse and subsequently clear a FAA standard obstacle at the end of the runway." Like I said above, at Cody WY, in a fully-loaded Cougar, in July, I was no better off than in a Tiger for engine failure on takeoff, and maybe worse because with two engines, I had twice the chance of one failing.

 

[AuntPeggy]

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?

Interesting twist this thread has taken.

Anyway, are you still aiming for crop dusting?

 

[ajstoner21]

Just a random (I appologize if its borderline inappropriate) comment, its funny to me to see how many non multi-engine rated pilots out there say they wish they had a multi-engine plane because "if one engine fails, you still have one!" They never seem to realize that is potentially more dangerous if you werent taught multi-engine aerodynamics very well. You might be under the illusion you can maintain altitude and next thing you know, you're hitting a tree, stalling, or rolling over on take off. They don't realize that for light twins, the requirement to be able to demonstrate climb performance on single engine isn't required.

I can tell you a Piper Seminole can't maintain altitude with gear down and flaps on a single engine on a normal summer day (I guess thats easily demonstrated with a drag demo at altitude)

 

[Fearless Tower]

Also realize that for light twins, unless you're light or low, there probably isn't a "speed below liftoff where there's enough speed to get off the ground and cleaned up while continuing to accelerate to Vyse and subsequently clear a FAA standard obstacle at the end of the runway."

Believe it or not, the Duchess actually has a published 'accelerate-go distance'. BUT, like you say, you have to be at sea level and dang near empty to pull it off.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just a random (I appologize if its borderline inappropriate) comment, its funny to me to see how many non multi-engine rated pilots out there say they wish they had a multi-engine plane because "if one engine fails, you still have one!" They never seem to realize that is potentially more dangerous if you werent taught multi-engine aerodynamics very well. You might be under the illusion you can maintain altitude and next thing you know, you're hitting a tree, stalling, or rolling over on take off.

You got it.

They don't realize that for light twins, the requirement to be able to demonstrate climb performance on single engine isn't required.

Actually, it is, but only under very limited conditions (which aren't met when you lose one just after liftoff), and only if their stall speed is more than 61 knots. For the slower ones, they still have to determine what the performance is, but it can be negative. See 23.67.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...2459CA427595FBF685256687006BC958?OpenDocument

 

[ajstoner21]

Interesting! I need to spend more time reading those airworthiness/certification FARs. Thanks!

You got it.

Actually, it is, but only under very limited conditions (which aren't met when you lose one just after liftoff), and only if their stall speed is more than 61 knots. For the slower ones, they still have to determine what the performance is, but it can be negative. See 23.67.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...2459CA427595FBF685256687006BC958?OpenDocument

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Technically, V1 doesn't really exist since it isn't published. The concept of V1 is a speed below liftoff where there's enough speed to get off the ground and cleaned up while continuing to accelerate to Vyse and subsequently clear a FAA standard obstacle at the end of the runway that meets the published balanced field requirements.In most light twins V1 at MGW would be well above Vyse+5 if it were published and from a practical perspective it's easier to let the plane tell you when you're "good to go" by it's reaching Vyse at some point during the takeoff, preferably with the gear retracted. But you must realize that this requires more runway for a truly "balanced field" than what the POH says.

Good answer - Bruce's "V1" comment had me confused, because there really isn't one on a small multi-engine airplane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Just a random (I appologize if its borderline inappropriate) comment, its funny to me to see how many non multi-engine rated pilots out there say they wish they had a multi-engine plane because "if one engine fails, you still have one!" They never seem to realize that is potentially more dangerous if you werent taught multi-engine aerodynamics very well. You might be under the illusion you can maintain altitude and next thing you know, you're hitting a tree, stalling, or rolling over on take off.

I do have a multi rating, but the real reason I want a twin is so that I can go over this big, cold body of water with the big, unfriendly city at the end of it that gets in the way every time I go east.

Yeah, I know I *can* fly a single over the water (and I do it, in very limited circumstances - Usually once a year) and I know the engine doesn't know it's over water, but... Engines do fail, and I've decided that a cold bath is not the way I want to go.

 

[LearDriver]

In transport category aircraft V1 changes based on Weight, Altitude and Temperature. Its also further adjustable when the runway is contaminated, there are MEL'ed system failures like anti skid inop. Right now I am flying a Lear 55 and V1 with 20 degrees of flaps can vary from 106 kts at 15K to 135 kts at 21.5k. Thats accounting for a range of 6.5k in weight difference on takeoff which yields a speed range of 29 kts.

The concept behind this speed is that you need to have already made the first action towards an abort by the time that you achieve V1 speed. Which is normally power levers to idle. We are taught that bad stuff can happen when you try to abort above V1 speed. Especially if you are on a true balanced field you should plan on over running the end of the pavement because your brakes will likely not have enough stopping power. Above V1 speed you are going flying. The only reason that I would abort abort above V1 would be if I thought the airplane was unflyable due to structural damage.

I believe that this concept can be adopted somewhat by light twins. I use it in the twin cessnas. Based on weight density altitude, and temperature I have a 5 to 10 knot speed window where I assign a speed that I will plan to abort by or go flying. The speed tends to be closer to VXSE than what the manuals publish as rotation speed. If you cant at least get to redline then you might as well stay on the ground.

 

[gismo]

In transport category aircraft V1 changes based on Weight, Altitude and Temperature. Its also further adjustable when the runway is contaminated, there are MEL'ed system failures like anti skid inop. Right now I am flying a Lear 55 and V1 with 20 degrees of flaps can vary from 106 kts at 15K to 135 kts at 21.5k. Thats accounting for a range of 6.5k in weight difference on takeoff which yields a speed range of 29 kts.

The concept behind this speed is that you need to have already made the first action towards an abort by the time that you achieve V1 speed. Which is normally power levers to idle. We are taught that bad stuff can happen when you try to abort above V1 speed. Especially if you are on a true balanced field you should plan on over running the end of the pavement because your brakes will likely not have enough stopping power. Above V1 speed you are going flying. The only reason that I would abort abort above V1 would be if I thought the airplane was unflyable due to structural damage.

I believe that this concept can be adopted somewhat by light twins. I use it in the twin cessnas. Based on weight density altitude, and temperature I have a 5 to 10 knot speed window where I assign a speed that I will plan to abort by or go flying. The speed tends to be closer to VXSE than what the manuals publish as rotation speed. If you cant at least get to redline then you might as well stay on the ground.

And how do you calculate the (unpublished) accel-stop and accel-go distances?

 

[bbchien]

You do what I did. Accumulate an excel spreadsheet in my then double-runout, of about 1000 point of accelerate stop distances. Plan to trash the bakes and mains. Record temps, winds, distances, baros, at many dirrerent weights.

That's how you do it. I brought many many donuts to Tracon. A light twin operator can think of V1 as the speed at which you can bring it to a halt and not go off the pavement. Of course if V1 is lesser than Vyse, that means something, ya-think?