Why are multiple engines different?

Bob Gardner writes:

Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any
insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not
impossible, just unlikely.

Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
more dangerous?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sylvain writes:

is this the reason why the night flying requirement for an initial
commercial in a multi- does not have to be solo? I mean, did the
FAA tailor the rules to fit the insurance requirements?

What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate
in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may
factor into this also)

So someone will do it if you put the money down?

Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also
implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft?

I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have
never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message .

Anyway, I dislike P-factor and torque issues, and I figure they'd be
less prominent on a multiengine aircraft (especially with
counterrotating powerplants, but apparently there aren't many aircraft
like that). And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane.

And the above, my friend, shows precisely why separate training and
certification are required. Any airplane, from Cessna to Boeing, is fairly
easy to fly when everything goes right. Teaching the procedures involved in
an engine failure is fairly straightforward; and, like most straightforward
procedures, they are not difficult to learn with practice. But the rub
comes afterward. When you have more than one engine, that means you still
have at least one remaining after a failure, and that means you have
decisions to make. The judgement associated with these decisions is what is
important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

.....I wouldn't want to have to
deal with that in real life. Still, I'd have a better chance than I
would with an engine failure in a single-engine plane.

Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least not
nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is the decision
making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in a twin. In a
single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made for you as soon as the
engine fails.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Don't you adjust props and deal with landing gear in single-engine
aircraft, too? Or do I need a multiengine certification just to have
retractable gear??

depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed landing gear,
fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for initial
training (there is enough already to worry about before adding
extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch props
you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or certificate
or rating; it consists in additional training from an instructor (see
14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the logbook, it's a
one time thing. There are similar endorsements required to fly
'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp),
tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations.

Now a multi- can be complex or not (rare but it exists),
high performance or not (note that it is not the sum of the
power of the engines that count, whether or not it has any
engine with more than 200hp -- i.e., you could have an
aicraft with ten 200hp engines which would still not qualify
as 'high performance' :-) ), tailwheel or not, pressurised
or not, so do single engines. It is orthogonal if you
like.

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:
What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two?

The FAA in its infinite wisdom, has it covered; airplane
that require more than one pilot tend not to be used
as primary trainers though.

Question: is there any aircraft out there that require
more than one pilot but does not require a type certificate?

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:

Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
more dangerous?

yes. For a number of reasons already mentioned by others, i.e., there
are a lot more things that can get wrong, and the decision process is
more complex (stats I have seen suggest that you are more likely to die
if you loose an engine in a twin than if you loose one in a single);
more over, multi- aircraft tend to be bigger, faster, etc.

Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
can rent on your own.

--Sylvain

"Bob Gardner" wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj-
:

Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any
insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not
impossible, just unlikely.

Bob Gardner



Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

Sylvain wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
more dangerous?

yes. For a number of reasons already mentioned by others, i.e., there
are a lot more things that can get wrong, and the decision process is
more complex (stats I have seen suggest that you are more likely to die
if you loose an engine in a twin than if you loose one in a single);
more over, multi- aircraft tend to be bigger, faster, etc.

Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
can rent on your own.

Really? I've never had a problem.