MEI checkride

[sargeanb]

I'm planning on taking the MEI ride this week...any common or difficult questions and maneuvers you all have experienced on that ride? I'm not terribly worried about it...I expect I'll be teaching Vmc/engine out ops and Duchess systems mainly. I'm going through the PTS step by step and compiling a study guide on each subject, as always with checks, but the DE with all of his experience may have some tough unexpected Q's, as they normally do. Any experiences?

-Brock Sargeant
CFI/II

[GaTechKid]

Another poster over at flightinfo asked for some practical advice on multi instruction so I'll just paste what I had written:

[ QUOTE ]
After instructing for the past couple hundred hours in the multi here are my notes and advice to you:

1) I can't stress enough the importance of protecting the power quadrant and guarding the rudder when giving engine failures to students. There's nothing more exciting (sarcasm) than your student stomping on the wrong rudder or feathering the incorrect prop. To prevent this, place your foot over the rudder you want your student to step on and either use your hand to guard the prop levers or keep your hand near the power quadrant to quickly correct a blood-pressure inducing mistake.

2) One of the best ways to keep from being surprised is to decide on how you will fail an engine and stick to it. For example, I always fail the left engine with the mixture and the right engine with the throttle. The student is so overwhelmed with dealing with the engine failure that they never pick up on my pattern. It ensures that I always guard the correct rudder.

3) If I was going to pick a couple of the more dangerous training exercises I'd have to say it would be the Vmc demo and the After Takeoff engine failure. Please make sure to not only fully brief the student on the what/why of the Vmc demo but DEMONSTRATE it in flight. Be alert and make sure they don't take it too far. Either simulate the A/T engine failure up at a safe altitude or, if you pull the throttle on your student >500' AGL, have your hand up on the power quadrant to prevent the student from actually feathering the prop. Believe me, they will try. If you let them, you'll have enough excitement to fill the next year.

4) Use a runway that's at least 4000' long for simulated single-engine landings. I used to think that 3000' was plenty of runway. Experience has a funny way of changing your views.

5) If you're alert and prepared you'll be fine. Multi instruction is fun and rewarding.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kellwolf]

Not sure if I would ever fail an engine with the mixture unless I'm already sitting on the runway. I want the option of just throwing the throttle forward to correct any student's interesting responses. Shutting an engine down but an "Oh, surprise! Your engine just failed" type failure, I'd rather just pull a throttle back.

[jtrain609]

Ask Walter about the after takeoff engine failure he did with me during my MEI training.

[BayAreaCFI]

The MEI ride was the easiest ride I took. Know your sytems and know how to diagram the 4 factors of a critical engine without tying yourself in a knot. And kellwolf, you have to use mixture so you can completly feather the prop. But...you always want to do it above 3000 agl and near an airport.

[jtrain609]

Want to? You're crazy and I'd say violating 91.13 if you're not on the ground under 40 knots or above 3,000' AGL when you pull a mixture.

Go read the PTS.

[GaTechKid]

[ QUOTE ]
Want to? You're crazy and I'd say violating 91.13 if you're not on the ground under 40 knots or above 3,000' AGL when you pull a mixture.

Go read the PTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Seminole, if you give a before-takeoff engine failure above 28 knots you are violating the PTS.

I always use the mixture above 3000'. When you have that kind of altitude then the 1/2 second difference in delay between putting the throttle forward as opposed to the mixture doesn't matter. Using the mixture both avoids a tangling of arms as the student runs through their flow and allows the student to completely run through their troubleshoot checklist. Of course choose whatever method you are more comfortable with, but using the mixture is a safe and widely used method for simulating engine failure.

[jtrain609]

F that. I use the mixture twice; once on the runway below 28 knots (what is it? 1/2 Vso?) and then once again to actually shut down the engine to secure it. There's zero reason to create an emergency out of a simulation. Pulling the mixture can do just that. Pulling the throttle back is quite good enough for me.

I make it a point to guard the whole quadrant when flying a twin until we are at an altitude where I feel it's safe enough to pull an engine.

[GaTechKid]

[ QUOTE ]
I use the mixture twice; once on the runway below 28 knots (what is it? 1/2 Vso?)

[/ QUOTE ]

....1/2 Vmc - Dude, you just told BayAreaCFI to go read the PTS. Do you see the irony?

The only emergency that is created when using the mixture, or the throttle for that matter, is the instructor not being prepared to react in case the student does something unexpected.

[KLB]

[ QUOTE ]
Want to? You're crazy and I'd say violating 91.13 if you're not on the ground under 40 knots or above 3,000' AGL when you pull a mixture.

Go read the PTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is somewhere in the Operation Manual where the manufacture recommends that you don't fail an engine in the Seminole below 4,000. KB through that at me on my MEI check ride. I never found it in the manual, but he says that its there.

[KLB]

I really don't have a problem with shutting an engine down. I did it all the time during my CMEL and MEI training. I will not do it on the twin that I will be doing some instructing in because it is fuel injected and has some vapor lock issues.

[jtrain609]

Yeah, VMC...that's the stuff

Either way, you HOPE that the engine comes back online when you put the mixture forward again. It will MOST of the time, but what happens when it dosen't? I don't think the same argument can be made against putting an engine at zero thrust.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, you HOPE that the engine comes back online when you put the mixture forward again. It will MOST of the time, but what happens when it dosen't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have 2 choices:

1. Fly it in ground effect, avoiding obstacles until you can climb out.

or

2. The remaining engine will take you to your crash site.

Here's an interesting thought:

What's the cost of doing business? How realistic do you want training vs the risk of performing that training to that degree? Does one technique gain any training value over the other?

I guess it all depends. In a plane like a BE-76 or PA-44, I wouldn't push too much the performance, or lack thereof, and have to depend on a single engine if put in that square corner. In a plane like an empty PA-31-350 Chieftain, I'd be more apt to pursue more realistic training pending ISA, density altitude, etc are taken into account.

But that's just me. That's my personal risk analysis of how much I believe the "cost of business" is. Will likely differ with differing folks.

Be prepared, though, to be able to justify any action you perform to the FAA if need be, such as a mishap.

[jrh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either way, you HOPE that the engine comes back online when you put the mixture forward again. It will MOST of the time, but what happens when it dosen't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have 2 choices:

1. Fly it in ground effect, avoiding obstacles until you can climb out.

or

2. The remaining engine will take you to your crash site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't those two options only apply to cutting a mixture on climb? I don't think anybody is talking about that....only while on the runway or at a safe altitude.

For what it's worth, I'm almost finished with my multi training and I'm a big supporter of cutting the mixtures. It's the only realistic way to do it. I've been training with an instructor who has close to 4000 hours of instruction, 800 of which are in the Twin Commanche I've been training with. Here's what we do, and I'm very confident it is safe:

1. On climbout, we never fail an engine below 800 AGL and then, only fail it with the throttle. The disadvantage to this is that there is no way to catch me off guard. I keep a solid grip on the throttles during the climb, so my instructor has to tell me to loosen my grip so he can fail an engine. I think the realism of this is next to nothing. Even though I look straight ahead and don't consciously think about which throttle is being pulled, I can't help but be prepared for the failure and feel it coming when I feel a throttle slide out of my hand.

2. The lowest that we fail an engine with the mixture is at about 2000 AGL, going outbound on an instrument approach.

The procedure for failing an engine with a mixture (on approach or in the practice area) goes like this: The instructor kills a mixture and holds it shut with one hand, then immediately blocks both prop levers with the other hand. I shove all controls forward, identify, verify, troubleshoot, then place my hand on the appropriate prop lever and call, "Feathering [left/right] engine", then pull the lever back to his finger (about half an inch). He then calls out, "Setting zero thrust on the the [left/right] engine" and pushes the prop forward, mixture rich, and throttle to the zero thrust setting. From there, we continue to do whatever single engine exercises are needed with the engine running at zero thrust.

Even if the engine were to not come back when the mixture is advanced, as long as you have single engine performance, is this really a life and death situation? I'm asking this as an honest question, not a rhetorical question. As I said above, I don't have much multi experience yet.

I just know that in the Twin Commanche with full fuel on a hot day, with the critical engine feathered, we can easily maintain 5000 MSL and get a slight climb (100-200 fpm) out of it down lower.

If the engine didn't come back from a failure at 3500 MSL, I wouldn't be that concerned...I'd fly back to the airport and do a single engine landing. Isn't that the whole point of training? Shouldn't an instructor be proficient enough to handle such a situation? I might be naive, but it doesn't sound like that scary of a situation. Am I wrong?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't those two options only apply to cutting a mixture on climb? I don't think anybody is talking about that....only while on the runway or at a safe altitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was making the point that they'd apply if anytime you have a problem regaining power in that regime......be it mixture pull or throttle pull.

[ QUOTE ]

1. On climbout, we never fail an engine below 800 AGL and then, only fail it with the throttle. The disadvantage to this is that there is no way to catch me off guard. I keep a solid grip on the throttles during the climb, so my instructor has to tell me to loosen my grip so he can fail an engine. I think the realism of this is next to nothing. Even though I look straight ahead and don't consciously think about which throttle is being pulled, I can't help but be prepared for the failure and feel it coming when I feel a throttle slide out of my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

My old IP used to select the fuel off for that side he wanted to fail........I'd catch it in the flow through, but the initial response was sporty; and the aircraft we were doing it in had a good amount of excess power available single-engine.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the engine were to not come back when the mixture is advanced, as long as you have single engine performance, is this really a life and death situation? I'm asking this as an honest question, not a rhetorical question. As I said above, I don't have much multi experience yet.

I just know that in the Twin Commanche with full fuel on a hot day, with the critical engine feathered, we can easily maintain 5000 MSL and get a slight climb (100-200 fpm) out of it down lower.

If the engine didn't come back from a failure at 3500 MSL, I wouldn't be that concerned...I'd fly back to the airport and do a single engine landing. Isn't that the whole point of training? Shouldn't an instructor be proficient enough to handle such a situation? I might be naive, but it doesn't sound like that scary of a situation. Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good honest question. And the true answer is, it depends, IMHO. There's really three situations here, performance-wise.

1. You have good S/E performance.

2. You have lousy S/E performance.

3. You have marginal S/E performance.

1 and 2 are pretty easy to figure out. 3 is more subjective, IMO. 100-200 FPM climb rate is based on an interpolation of some performance chart. How much stock would you put in that? (I'm asking rhetorically). And that answer to that is: it also depends. It goes back to what one's risk model of the cost of business is for them. For some, they'll hedge the bet on the 100 fpm as being "good performance". That's fine. For others, with anything less than 400 fpm, or 500 fpm, (pick a number), they won't risk it.

It really all depends. If you crash because the plane wouldn't perform, but you had charts that showed +200 fpm for that day; you should be covered (even though there's still a pranged up plane). But is the risk worth the reward for the training objectives? If it is, good to go. If not, then not.

[kailuaboy]

With regards to killing an engine, I choose to use all three: fuel selector, mixture, and throttle.

I use the mixtures to simulate engine failure below Vr (i close the mixture pretty quick on takeoff roll, usually right before the airspeed comes alive). I NEVER simulate engine failure below 1000' AGL (just my paranoid self); unless we are in the traffic pattern (simulating failure in the pattern or single engine approachs). I use throttle below 3000'. I use Mixture and Fuel Selector above 3000'. I use the mixure when I want a clean shutdown of the engine. I use the fuel selector to catch the student off-guard (say their looking either to the left for traffic, ill kill the fuel selector and wait for it to die and see their reaction to the situation).

Of course, in all instances; im constantly aware of which engine I killed and which rudder (instinctively) to use.

With only 700tt and over 500multi (all BE76), i am very confident in a single engine situation (as ive had to land a few).

As for the POH saying youll get 100-200feet FPM climb (single engine). For the most part, i would add about 20% error to that, seeing how most of us are using aircraft dated back in the late 70's.

Oh, and for the students who arent comfortable with flying with only one engine; i show (demonstrate) them you can do steep turns with only one engine, even into the dead engine. As long as its coordinated and you watch your speed (watch that A.I.!!).

Just my 2cents on this subject.

[jrh]

[ QUOTE ]
It really all depends. If you crash because the plane wouldn't perform, but you had charts that showed +200 fpm for that day; you should be covered (even though there's still a pranged up plane). But is the risk worth the reward for the training objectives? If it is, good to go. If not, then not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That all makes sense to me.

But now, talking about instructing, shouldn't the instructor be familiar enough with the aircraft to know what sort of performance to expect? I haven't sat down and figured many performance problems for the Twin Commanche, but I've flown it on a hot day with full fuel at various altitudes and seen the single engine performance first hand, so I know what to expect.

I guess what I'm saying is, the instructor ought to know enough about what they're doing to be able to estimate performance without digging through a bunch of different performance charts. I consider that part of situational awareness and staying in command of what's happening. I don't care what the performance chart says, if you end up sinking into the ground. The instructor ought to know from experience that you'll sink into the ground--and I'm saying this strictly in the context of what we've been talking about here, such as acceptable times to fail an engine during multi training. I'm not talking about referencing a performance chart prior to taking off out of, say, an actual short field, or figuring fuel burn for a cross country trip.

As far as acceptable single engine performance, I'd consider being able to simply maintain altitude to be good enough in most situations, maybe, 1000+ AGL. During a routine practice flight, you're pretty much always in a position to descend in order to get home. Same for instrument approaches. Therefore only maintaining altitude is acceptable. Is there anything wrong with this line of thinking? (Once again, a serious question, not rhetorical)

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as acceptable single engine performance, I'd consider being able to simply maintain altitude to be good enough in most situations, maybe, 1000+ AGL. During a routine practice flight, you're pretty much always in a position to descend in order to get home. Same for instrument approaches. Therefore only maintaining altitude is acceptable. Is there anything wrong with this line of thinking? (Once again, a serious question, not rhetorical)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing at all wrong with that way of thinking, if that's the risk you're willing to accept (which what I mean, is neither bad or good....it's just what it is). Sure, an IP should have a ballpark idea of what kind of performance a plane will have for average given conditions. I just say to have the numbers handy and have a good idea of a number, performance-wise, were anything to happen. Because you will be checked up on, guaranteed, in the event of an incident.

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
And kellwolf, you have to use mixture so you can completly feather the prop. But...you always want to do it above 3000 agl and near an airport.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re-read what I said. I have a problem with "failing" the student's engine with the mixture, not performing an engine shutdown above 3000 AGL. Always failing the left with the throttle and right with the mixture, to me, sounds like a simulated engine failure.

[kailuaboy]

lol.... i have one student in perticular that lets me fly the plane sometimes and then as im flying, he fails an engine on me...keeps me on my toes... he only uses the throttles when he does it. And its never below 3000'.

[sargeanb]

UPDATE:

Passed the checkride last Friday...good posts by all. It was surprisingly easy (but $350? Ouch!) Now I've got to get my mind out of the Duchess and back in the Seminole (not much difference).

-Brock Sargeant
MEII

[mastermags]

[ QUOTE ]
The MEI ride was the easiest ride I took. Know your sytems and know how to diagram the 4 factors of a critical engine without tying yourself in a knot. And kellwolf, you have to use mixture so you can completly feather the prop. But...you always want to do it above 3000 agl and near an airport.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure I've seen the prop feathered with the mixture still rich. Why does it have to be idle?