Flight Review in a turbo twin

You do have a fair point and concern. Can it wait for summer?

Here is what I do. Don't do rapid power changes. If I will be simulating
an engine out, pull back slowly. and leave a little on to simulate
feather. If I need more power to keep it warm, drop down some flaps.

As far as your turbo worries go, I would think they will be okay. Unless
you don't allow them to spool down before shutting down.


But there are no guarantees about anything. It's always your call.]

John

chad wrote:
I own a turbo Cessna 310 and I'm wondering if other turbo twin owners
do their biennial flight review in their aircraft. Is single engine
work required for a flight review if done in a twin? I'm concered
that doing the review in my aircraft may be hard on the engines,
specifically the turbos. Would I be better off to just rent a single
engine for the review?

Interesting, the way these threads go... I see some folks rightously
claiming the FAA didn't INTEND for this or that... The 'intent' of the
FAA is absolutely meaningless, and any trial court in the country will
tell you that... It is what the reg says that is legally binding - not
the intent of the FAA legal staff who signed off on the reg, many of
whom will not even be still employed there...
The intent of the Bienniel Flight Review (as revealed by the language)
is that each of us shall get one hour of flight instruction from a CFI
- period....
Presumably the FAA feels that will help with public safety, or maybe
not, but that gets us back into the quicksand of intent. In any case,
you do the 1 hour of flight review and if the CFI feels that you have
met the criteria HE has set (no slight implied Michelle), you get
signed off as meeting the regulation...

In my case I chose to improve my airplane handling by renewing my
acquaintance with cross wind landings in conventional gear aircraft
with right hand stick and left hand throttle..
In your case it might be best spent reviewing PAR approaches to
minimums -
In another case it might be best spent reviewing the proper way to
enter the traffic pattern (based on what I see some pilots do)
For others some intensive instruction on how NOT to use the radio
would be very useful!
For others a reintroduction to cross country navigation using only a
whisky compass and a chart would pay benefits... When is the last
time you plotted a cross country course including compass deviation
and variation and wind correction angle (remember those terms? can
you define them?) and then flew it...

In any case, if the CFI tells me he wants to see single engine cuts at
50 feet, he will remain unemployed by me...

cheers ... denny

On Feb 17, 5:34 am, "Denny" wrote:

In any case, if the CFI tells me he wants to see single engine cuts at
50 feet, he will remain unemployed by me...

In a SE plane. Why?

BTW: The FAA has said a number of times that they want to change the
requirements of the BFR to be more like the IPC. They want to add a
section to the PTS for each rating and require the pilot to meet the
table of requirement that will be in the PTS for the rating they hold.
AOPA has argued that CFIs are doing a good job today of making BFRs
"personal" to the pilot. If too many CFIs abuse this, the FAA will get
its way pretty quick.


-Robert

In article . com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Feb 17, 5:34 am, "Denny" wrote:

In any case, if the CFI tells me he wants to see single engine cuts at
50 feet, he will remain unemployed by me...

In a SE plane. Why?

BTW: The FAA has said a number of times that they want to change the
requirements of the BFR to be more like the IPC. They want to add a
section to the PTS for each rating and require the pilot to meet the
table of requirement that will be in the PTS for the rating they hold.
AOPA has argued that CFIs are doing a good job today of making BFRs
"personal" to the pilot. If too many CFIs abuse this, the FAA will get
its way pretty quick.


-Robert

The question of what a BFR should be has troubled me from the day I got my
CFI. I don't give "easy" BFRs, and I do try to customize the review to the
certificates and flying habits of the pilot in question. I fundamentally
only have one requirement -- that I can go home that night and get a good
night's sleep without worrying about my signature being in somebody's
logbook.

I'm up-front about that with the people who come to me. Anybody who feels
I'm exceeding the bounds of my authority is free to go fly with another
CFI. That's the great thing about a free-market economy.

I do all of my instructing with a flying club which has its own rules about
recurrent training (stiffer than the FAA). In a way, this gives me more
freedom. People almost never come to me just to do a BFR; it's always "A
BFR and a club annual checkout". If pushed, I can legitimately say that
the extra stuff I'm insisting on is mandated by the club.

"Robert M. Gary" writes:

[...] AOPA has argued that CFIs are doing a good job today of making
BFRs "personal" to the pilot. If too many CFIs abuse this, the FAA
will get its way pretty quick. [...]

I wonder what else AOPA could possibly say, without
tarnishing the "GA is safe" slogan.

- FChE

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 17, 5:34 am, "Denny" wrote:

In any case, if the CFI tells me he wants to see single engine cuts at
50 feet, he will remain unemployed by me...

In a SE plane. Why?

BTW: The FAA has said a number of times that they want to change the
requirements of the BFR to be more like the IPC. They want to add a
section to the PTS for each rating and require the pilot to meet the
table of requirement that will be in the PTS for the rating they hold.
AOPA has argued that CFIs are doing a good job today of making BFRs
"personal" to the pilot. If too many CFIs abuse this, the FAA will get
its way pretty quick.


-Robert


If the FAA wants to change this rule, what is stopping them? Couldn't they
change the BFR tomorrow? The minutia of FAA rules isn't subject to vote by
the government, is it?

KB

On Feb 18, 6:05 am, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
If the FAA wants to change this rule, what is stopping them? Couldn't they
change the BFR tomorrow? The minutia of FAA rules isn't subject to vote by
the government, is it?

Subject to strong lobby groups.

-Robert

On 17 Feb 2007 09:11:25 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Feb 17, 5:34 am, "Denny" wrote:

In any case, if the CFI tells me he wants to see single engine cuts at
50 feet, he will remain unemployed by me...

In a SE plane. Why?

BTW: The FAA has said a number of times that they want to change the
requirements of the BFR to be more like the IPC. They want to add a
section to the PTS for each rating and require the pilot to meet the
table of requirement that will be in the PTS for the rating they hold.
AOPA has argued that CFIs are doing a good job today of making BFRs
"personal" to the pilot. If too many CFIs abuse this, the FAA will get
its way pretty quick.

Thing is a BFR should be personal. It should be tailored to the pilot
taking the review. IOW it should address any weaknesses or things not
done recently. When I sign up for a flight review I tell the CFI what
I need to work on. If he wants to do more that is fine, if he wants to
do every thing in the PTS that is fine too, but we will cover all the
things I know I need to brush up on.
We will do full stalls (departure, approach, and accelerated). If the
CFI is not comfortable with doing that in my plane then I'll get a
different instructor.




-Robert
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

chad wrote:

may be hard on the engines,
specifically the turbos.

What are you worried about the turbochargers, specifically.