Dangerous tasks on old multiengine PTS?

pscraig

pscraig

Well-Known Member
Does anyone have an old (1960-1970) PTS for a multiengine rating? I was talking to a guy who was an MEI in the early 1970's, and what he told me suprised me. According to this person, stalls on a single engine, low altitude Vmc demonstrations, and instrument approaches on a feathered engine were required by the PTS. These are things I would never do, it's flirting with death, and yet the FAA required them at one time. That's a bit before my time, anyone have any info?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have an old (1960-1970) PTS for a multiengine rating? I was talking to a guy who was an MEI in the early 1970's, and what he told me suprised me. According to this person, stalls on a single engine, low altitude Vmc demonstrations, and instrument approaches on a feathered engine were required by the PTS. These are things I would never do, it's flirting with death, and yet the FAA required them at one time. That's a bit before my time, anyone have any info?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know specifically, but I can say that on my 135 checkout, I had to demonstrate a low-altitude engine failure when dirty and slow, and following a touch and go just after liftoff; real world no runway remaining. I also recall us doing S/E stalls in the Chieftain.
 
Never tried a single engine stall in a twin, but I'd much rather fly an approach feathered than at simulated zero thrust. Ever tried it? It's a heck of a lot easier.
 
I had the "opportunity" to land a PA-44 with an engine feathered last year after a prop governor failed. I agree it flies very well on one engine. Taxiing is another matter, however.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Never tried a single engine stall in a twin, but I'd much rather fly an approach feathered than at simulated zero thrust. Ever tried it? It's a heck of a lot easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

On prop planes, I've only ever done the zero-thrust S/E. Did a real single-engine in a Hog. It's alright if you stay ahead of the power curve. You don't, and.........
ooo.gif
 
That's correct that people used to have to do those manuvers. Dunno what the FAA was thinking, they lost a decent amount of planes that way.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's correct that people used to have to do those manuvers. Dunno what the FAA was thinking, they lost a decent amount of planes that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that seems pretty crazy. I would hate to think about teaching a student those manuvers. There is a few that a we have to do today that are either pointless, or unsafe.

People make the mistake that the FAA was/is composed of people who know anything about aviation, airplanes or what might or might not be safe.

Following the FARs keeps you legale. It's up to you to stay safe.

Always rember, except for the GPS velcroed to the dash, most everything in aviation is at best 1950s technology. Most everything in GA was developed in the early 1930s.

A piston airplane engine has more in common with a Harley than a modren fuel ingected automobile. No variable spark timing, no electronic fuel injection, no computer controls, nothing.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Don't know specifically, but I can say that on my 135 checkout, I had to demonstrate a low-altitude engine failure ...following a touch and go just after liftoff; real world no runway remaining.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. Kind of took me by surprise, even though I was warned it was a trick of this examiner.

And in this case, it was even worse than what an actual engine failure would have been, since he pulled the power lever to idle. If he had actually shut it down, the NTS system would've reduced drag significantly making it a bit easier to handle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top