On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:54:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even multi
would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating?

Perhaps, or maybe my inexperience and ignorance read that into it...
Either way, what I wrote is exactly the understanding that I walked
away with as an early PP-ASEL student.

It is true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires a lot
of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning fast
reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an
eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get a
multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging. Naturally,
like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies
airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill".

I can see how high power low speed, (such as on climb out) could be
much more dangerous than an engine failure on approach.

Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was
kinda funny... in a sick sorta way.

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

As othere have mentioned, losing an engine on approach should be a non
event. There is minimal yaw because the power is set low.

Do not know the differences between a single and multi on approach, so
I can not add anything of value. Though you make it sound very
similar to a single in the respect to low power.

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com