Multi engine training.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Here is a question about multi engine rating training.

You hire a new instructor to teach in a school you own.

The new instructor wants to train on a light twin you own, we will pretend the airplane is a Twin Comanche for the purpose of this thread.

You do an initial check ride with this new instructor to access the new instructors ability to teach a student to fly a twin.

The take off climb and half the circuit goes normal including setting cruise power.

However about half way down wind the instructor shoves the prop levers up to climb R.P.M. from cruise R.P.M.

You ask him/her why he/she has increased the prop R.P.M and the answer you get is he/she is starting the pre landing check.

You comment that you do not want your airplane operated in that manner and the answer you get is that is the way to train pilots for the multi engine rating.

Would you allow this pilot to train on your airplane?

[Slick Goodlin]

Just to play devil's advocate here, would you do it any differently if you wanted a steeper than an FTU approach?

[Colonel]

You do this in a C421, you will trash the gearboxes
in the very expensive (USD $75,000 overhaul, each)
TCM GTSIO-520 engines.

While TC Inspectors and AvCan moderators may
encourage (or even require) very poor engine handling
technique, it will not help the student when they
try to fly something other than an FTU training twin.

[HiFlyChick]

I wouldn't be so quick to write someone off as an instructor if they've been taught incorrectly themselves - they may have done all of their training at a single school, so they may never have seen proper technique.  It also obviously depends how their overall teaching skills are.  It's a lot easier to correct someone's knowledge than their personality

I know there've been many posts along the lines of "someone who's an instructor should know better", but realistically, a lot of instructors are pretty low time pilots, and as I said, may only have ever been exposed to one school and one way of thinking


P.S.  Could we try and have one discussion without constant digs about TC inspectors and AvCan mods?  It's getting old.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hiflychick, I started this thread to discuss how dumbed down the flight training industry generally speaking is.

I am sort of simple in my thinking process and I find it strange that as time passes the training industry gets dumbed down more and more.

As to TC and digging at them are they not the governing body that is supposed to ensure quality in flight instruction?

The example I gave regarding airplane handling skills is to me one of the best examples of dumming down flight training.

Maybe we should just shit can all discussion about flight training because we might look to not be P.C. and in awe of the regulator and their products?

[digits]

You comment that you do not want your airplane operated in that manner and the answer you get is that is the way to train pilots for the multi engine rating.

Would you allow this pilot to train on your airplane?

Actually, this might be a good thing. The amount of yes-people who just agree to everything in your face and then do something else behind your back that I have encountered lately is incredibly high. Might have something to do with the Canadian-being-polite thing, but still, it makes it very hard to deal with people and to trust what they say. So if a flight instructor stands up for his opinion when it is obvious his possible employer is expecting a different answer, I find that very commendable.

Now, he needs to be open to a discussion of course. So if you present your logcial/technically supported arguments (not: "i want you to do it this way"), he will most likely change his mind and agree to it, or explain to you why he won't agree. At that point you can still decide if you want to hire him or not. It might be your airplane, but it is still his ass on the line of something goes wrong. So he needs to be convinced that your way is at least safe and -preferably- better than his way.

[David MacRay]

Just to play ignorant of constant speed props.(method acting) Can we get deeper into what happened?

Would it have been ok if the instructor had reduced the throttles first?

Possibly more important, is there some plane where that would be a good idea?

Digits, How's it going?

[CpnCrunch]

Assuming the POH of the a/c has no limitation like this, what are the primary reasons you wouldn't want the a/c operated like this (playing devil's advocate)? Would you allow the pilot to train on the a/c without abiding to your rule? If the pilot had a good reason to do it, would you allow it, or is it a hard limitation? If it's a hard limitation I would imagine you would really have to trust the pilot that he/she will fly the a/c in that manner when your not on board and are unlikely to find out about it.

I'm also interested in the answer to this. Will it damage the engine in any way (of a Twin Comanche) to gradually move the props to climb rpm on the downwind?

[David MacRay]

"Gradually move them versus shove"

Maybe that would make a difference. Chuck?

[David MacRay]

Shoving things is usually not good.  :D

Well shoving was specifically mentioned in the OP.

However about half way down wind the instructor shoves the prop levers up to climb R.P.M. from cruise R.P.M.

One problem with people, pilots can be real bad for this. Once you see a couple of other primates do something, it can be tough not to join in. Look at our old friend "Any conflicting traffic please advise." I don't know how or why but at some point in the past I somehow thought, "Ooo, that's a good one, maybe they will speak up if I do that."