John2375
New Member
Hello,
I've recently done my Multi-engine (IFR) add-on, and did it at a location I won't disclose because I'm a little worried about a couple of things.
I thoroughly enjoyed the week of training, I thought it was top-notch 100% I liked being in the "airline cockpit" environment, running checklists like the pros and so forth (I think every place should, but most FBO's I've been at are as lax as possible). Anyway, obviously they were certain procedures for the multi-work, engine failures, engine shutdowns, and so forth. Since this was my first experience in a twin, it was all new and I think I handled it well and loved every second of it. The ground school was grueling for me since I'm as far from a "book" guy as you can get, but I learned the stuff well and was ready to go on my checkride.
Checkride day, and the oral went the best of any oral I've ever had...I'm usually stumbling and fumbling for even the most basic answers. The examiner was one of the nicest people I've ever met and I was excited to be talking with him; he genuininly wanted to learn as much from me as I did from him.
So anyway, all week long, my instructor would pull a mixture on me, and I'd react properly (well eventually I reacted properly!) by saying "mixture full" and pushing the good one forward while he held the "bad" one back, "props forward throttles forward, check flaps up, gear up, identify (w/dead foot), and verify (pulling throttle on bad engine back)" The engine of course would be spluttering and he'd either let me have it back, or we'd feather it and secure it and start it later. Anyway, when we were about ready to go for the ride, the examiner said when he wanted to fail an engine on me, he'd pull back a throttle (covering them up so I couldn't cheat!) and I was to simply touch the blue handle of which engine it was I was going to feather...much simpler, and different. I wanted to verify that that was all he wanted, since it seemed so simple, and I explained how I was used to the mixture being yanked and going thru the whole thing, no matter what altitude, and he looked surprised and said "I'm fat not stupid!!"
Anyway the point is, that he said that was crazy to do that, and so I just said "ok" and was more than happy to do it the easier way. Also I was supposed to have received training of an engine shut down and re-start while under the hood, and that was never covered, but luckily I improvised and got through it (damn near stalled the %^&$-er though).
So as a result, I was flying like crap and nearly blew almost everything except the stall recoveries. In fact, I messed up so bad on the instrument approaches I was sure I'd blown it...I mean, really stupid sh*t that I'd have flunked a guy on if I was examaning him. Most everything else went ok, but I blew the short-field landing by maybe 5 inches, and he flunked me on that, so I have to go back and demonstrate a short field landing on Monday...
But in any case, it just really concerned me that the examiner was on a very different page from ATP, and also, that he said the checklists are all wrong for the high altitude locations (he said ATP is a sea level school) and they need to adjust their checklists accordingly..for example checklist says full mixture - he said "NO! Lean it back"
anyway, just some venting and some concern for your reading pleasure...
John
I've recently done my Multi-engine (IFR) add-on, and did it at a location I won't disclose because I'm a little worried about a couple of things.
I thoroughly enjoyed the week of training, I thought it was top-notch 100% I liked being in the "airline cockpit" environment, running checklists like the pros and so forth (I think every place should, but most FBO's I've been at are as lax as possible). Anyway, obviously they were certain procedures for the multi-work, engine failures, engine shutdowns, and so forth. Since this was my first experience in a twin, it was all new and I think I handled it well and loved every second of it. The ground school was grueling for me since I'm as far from a "book" guy as you can get, but I learned the stuff well and was ready to go on my checkride.
Checkride day, and the oral went the best of any oral I've ever had...I'm usually stumbling and fumbling for even the most basic answers. The examiner was one of the nicest people I've ever met and I was excited to be talking with him; he genuininly wanted to learn as much from me as I did from him.
So anyway, all week long, my instructor would pull a mixture on me, and I'd react properly (well eventually I reacted properly!) by saying "mixture full" and pushing the good one forward while he held the "bad" one back, "props forward throttles forward, check flaps up, gear up, identify (w/dead foot), and verify (pulling throttle on bad engine back)" The engine of course would be spluttering and he'd either let me have it back, or we'd feather it and secure it and start it later. Anyway, when we were about ready to go for the ride, the examiner said when he wanted to fail an engine on me, he'd pull back a throttle (covering them up so I couldn't cheat!) and I was to simply touch the blue handle of which engine it was I was going to feather...much simpler, and different. I wanted to verify that that was all he wanted, since it seemed so simple, and I explained how I was used to the mixture being yanked and going thru the whole thing, no matter what altitude, and he looked surprised and said "I'm fat not stupid!!"
Anyway the point is, that he said that was crazy to do that, and so I just said "ok" and was more than happy to do it the easier way. Also I was supposed to have received training of an engine shut down and re-start while under the hood, and that was never covered, but luckily I improvised and got through it (damn near stalled the %^&$-er though).
So as a result, I was flying like crap and nearly blew almost everything except the stall recoveries. In fact, I messed up so bad on the instrument approaches I was sure I'd blown it...I mean, really stupid sh*t that I'd have flunked a guy on if I was examaning him. Most everything else went ok, but I blew the short-field landing by maybe 5 inches, and he flunked me on that, so I have to go back and demonstrate a short field landing on Monday...
But in any case, it just really concerned me that the examiner was on a very different page from ATP, and also, that he said the checklists are all wrong for the high altitude locations (he said ATP is a sea level school) and they need to adjust their checklists accordingly..for example checklist says full mixture - he said "NO! Lean it back"
anyway, just some venting and some concern for your reading pleasure...
John