MEI Initial - San Antonio FSDO

justind0805

Well-Known Member
Well...after about a 5 1/2 hour oral and 1.6 flight on the hobbs, fought through it and now a certified flight instructor! :rawk: When I was preparing for my checkride I really liked the write ups that I found on this forum so I figured I would help out other people who were in my shoes a couple of days ago. Sooo here we gooo

I was supposed to meet my examiner at the FBO at 815 tuesday morning. I arrived at 7 and got everything situated and ready to go, needles to say...my examiner ended up not getting there until 9! Oh well. First thing we did was go over the 8710 and my written exams, he said show him all the endorsements and ground training logs blah blah...then we went on to "show him the airplane was airworthy." I had mad a "Comprehensive Maintenance log" ahead of time and he really liked that. I just showed him that all the inspections and AD's were complied with on my paper and sited a few of them in the maintenance logs.

Then the actual exam started, he said I could use anything I wanted. Notes, books, handouts, etc. he just said don't say a word unless you know its correct. Understandable. We went into the FOI stuff but it was STRONGLY scenario based. I new everything there was about FOI...memorized all the terms, made a bunch of acronyms, the usual. But in the scenarios you had to put all of your FOI knowledge together and use it as a whole. Basically you had to actually figure out what kind of FOI he was trying to hint at and then know and use it effectively and properly. I really can't write up the scenarios, they were just really long stories and what I would do in different situations. I used the Laws of Learning, Constructivism, Cognitive Theory, defense mechanisms, Flight Instructor responsibilities, Teaching methods, overconfident or impatient student, Manslow's hierarchy of human needs, and charateristics of a lesson plan. My recommendation is just to not memorize it, because you can always just look at your notes and site stuff off, but spend some time understanding what the terms and ideas are really about.

Then onto the technical subject areas. We went over how alcohol affects your system (also what the regs , how I would handle a student pilot with one eye :pirate:, SODA, Authorization, spatial disorientation (this is where he proceeded on with a story of a plane crash that he had to go investigate due to spatial disorientation and to never endorse someone you wouldn't trust to fly your wife...ok) Medication...he asked me about a bunch of different medications and if they are to legal. The real answer is that all medication affects people differently and it is the pilot responsibility to know if they can fly safely. Also, check FAA website. Does someone flying a piper super cub up to 28,500 need a high altitude endorsement? For Airspace, he pulled out the sectional for the Washington DC area, made a giant diamond for the route and said the ceilings are at 3500 ft and I dont have an instrument rating...I was like thanks! Making it really easy here for me! lol But no big deal, just work your way through it, dont be in a hurry. The big thing he would of busted me on was we were over Baltimore under the class B arispace. Clear of obstacles, under the airspace, above Min safe altitudes, were we legal? The answer was no because we didn't have a safe gliding distance if we had an engine failure (we were over downtown Baltimore). Know how lift is created, what factors affect lift (Aoa, air density, velocity, etc.) and the Coefficient of Lift. I struggled with this because he wanted the actual equation. Fowler flaps, the four forces acting on an airplane, what an airfoil is, wing tip vortices, avoiding wake turbulence, why pilots use red light, what are some problems with using red light, how should things change while taking off at night relative to the day (use AI), traffic pattern different? nope, haze illusion, empty field illusion, when your eyes relax how far in front do they focus? 10ft, that really all the big stuff.

HMR 175...I'm sorry but I never read this. Its about Hazardous materials and carriage in the airplane. He drilled me on this, just started naming off a bunch of stuff...aircraft batteries, different kinds of hairspray, different kinds of air freshener, lysol, propaine, different kinds of window cleaner, etc. I said there has to be a line but I'm not aware of it...He said yeah its in HMR 175 and he would recommend me reading it :confused:.

I gave a lesson on Weight and Balance and Vmc and then we were ready to fly.

Flight was really easy. Taught him how to taxi at the privat pilot level, stressed runway incursion avoidance and CRM. Took off out of SAT...on climb out put the foggles on and did basic instrument maneuvers. When we leveled off we did unusual attitudes, steep turns with no AI, Vmc demo, Power off stall, Power on stall, decent into BAZ. Engine failure on short final and he wanted me to go a single engine go around. I kind of argued this during the preflight briefing but he really wanted us to do it. Came around in the pattern for a single engine landing, taxi back for full length t/o, engine failure on takeoff roll, engine failure on upwind, then he said that was great and we can head back to SAT. :D

Overall, just study hard, know your stuff and you will be fine! In my opinion, the examiner knows most people study really hard and are prepared for the material, they just want to know if you are ready as a person and can handle the responsibility. It was a rough ride, but I'm telling you its all worth it when you get to fly home with a brand new flight instructor ticket! :cool:

Good luck!
 
Sure did. He pulled it back around 400 AGL so I only had to climb 600 ft for pattern alt. A Baron can get pretty good climb performance on one engine this time of year
 
Congratulations. As an MEI you are now qualified to answer my question about the OEI go around, How would you have responded in the same scenario except OAT was 70 or 80F?
 
No problem! Thats a really good question. I really wanted to pull out the POH and look at the Performance charts but its at the office...Sooo just estimating here. During the checkride I think the OAT was around 65F and the Altimeter was 29.98. You have to remember, we are in San Antonio so 70 to 80F is relatively cool! With one engine INOP we still had roughly 200 to 300 ft/min climb while windmilling and 500 to 600 ft/min climb feathered.

To make your question a little more realistic for Texas...say it was the middle of the summer with an OAT of 98F and Altimeter 29.81...TOTALLY different story. I'm pretty sure our performance with the engine windmilling would be horrible (by horrible I mean negative) and feathered would probly be around 200 ft/min.

Good question, I think this plane would have been OK.

I'll get a more exact answer once I can get my hands onto the POH
 
Thanks for your response including having the proper attitude. For my ME comm add-on, I refused to go missed when the DE pulled an engine. I had already made the decision (no go around/missed blo xxx agl @ xx OAT) after reviewing the performance charts that morning. A discontinuance rewarded me for my forethought and he and I marched up to the CP's office for a good shout-fest.

One of my aviation goals is to end my career with no incidents, accidents, or violations. Don't let anyone do anything at anytime to jeopardize the safety of your flight. That includes ATC and examiners.
 
It was a random number I chose for OAT. I know how the temp can climb into you-got-to-be-kidding. But I used a lower OAT because the go/no go decision becomes quite obvious when it climbs into the triple digits. Now factor in FAA standard trees at the end of plenty of rwy but high OAT. Or you're loaded at gross using the same runway on a cool-ish summer morning. Or there is frost on the wings and the left engine is acting up...or any number of factors. It's when all the various performance-influencing factors but one are borderline that a "gotcha" may reach out to you.
 
Sheesh...what I really wanted to say...would you agree you made a rash decision to dutifully obey the examiner when he said go around? How certain were you of the aircraft's ability to successfully complete the go around? You didn't have the POH handy nor the time to review it during the maneuver.

I hope that doesn't sound like I'm busting your chops. I'm not. I guess I've read too many NTSB reports.
 
Sheesh...what I really wanted to say...would you agree you made a rash decision to dutifully obey the examiner when he said go around? How certain were you of the aircraft's ability to successfully complete the go around? You didn't have the POH handy nor the time to review it during the maneuver.

I hope that doesn't sound like I'm busting your chops. I'm not. I guess I've read too many NTSB reports.

I'm with you - I don't think there is any justification for a single engine go-around... unless the airport/runway is on fire or something.

If you're the PIC - it's your call. Period. Dot. Not the examiner's.

There are about 100 things that could have caused that engine to fail... and perhaps the other engine will follow shortly. I don't remember reading it in the Baron - but Cessna 400 series twins strongly advise not doing a single engine go-around if the gear is down and flaps 30 or more. It just doesn't make sense in a light twin.

I remember reading an NTSB report of a Navajo that did a single engine go around because of a last minute runway obstruction... while climb-out he was so anxious to get the bad engine feathered (which would be a valid concern for Vyse and Vmc) that he feathered the wrong one (both engines were having fuel related issues and one died, while the other ran rough)

Another incident where a early 400 series Cessna (I think it was a 421B) stopped in for fuel to fill the Aux tanks (inboards), unknowingly the attended had put JetA in both Aux tanks (I know, I know...big nozzle, little hole). On the flight taking off with the mains no problem... the pilots ran down the mains to make room for the Aux transfer... switched to Aux tanks... ran for a little bit... and meanwhile the aux tanks were pumping JetA back into the mains. Long story short the wrong fuel was in both tanks by the time it was figured out... a single engine go-around in this case would probably not have been successful.

Bottom-line... no matter how far-fetched those scenarios seem... they do happen. Just becareful making that single engine go-around decision.
 
Trying to salvage a bad approach to a landing may be a recipe for disaster. Adopting the attitude that a SE go-around is not an option except in extreme circumstance will one day lead only to the accident scene. Forcing a landing is not a good idea. I always keep the go-around/missed in my bag of tricks.

I've collided with the sky numerous times and have lived to tell about it. :)
 
Trying to salvage a bad approach to a landing may be a recipe for disaster. Adopting the attitude that a SE go-around is not an option except in extreme circumstance will one day lead only to the accident scene. Forcing a landing is not a good idea. I always keep the go-around/missed in my bag of tricks.

I'm sorry I should have been more clear about a single engine go around. A bad approach is a bad approach and something that really should be taken care of prior to - usually the result of pilot error.

I've only had three real life engine failures in a multi engine airplane in flight... two were on 'final' - seaplane (loss of oil pressure below 12'' feathered itself) and landplane (fuel pump gave up the ghost) and the other from another fuel pump problem in flight. Obviously the decision to go-around depends on the airplane. But in the case of the seaplane, a UC-1, a single engine go around is an extremely stupid, careless, and a near impossible task for that airplane for a number of reasons. Granted, I've never had any reason to do a single engine go around. But I do know this, engine failures on short final are not exactly easily recognizable at first. Chances are the power is low, and it would be hard to figure out what exactly is wrong.

I shouldn't have said that a single engine go around should never happen in a light twin - but rather it should be very carefully weighed.
 
But I do know this, engine failures on short final are not exactly easily recognizable at first. Chances are the power is low, and it would be hard to figure out what exactly is wrong.
Excellent response. I couldn't agree with you more. And to address the sentence I left of your quote, an engine failure is usually not catastrophic to the point of zero thrust. Usually it is producing partial power. On approach or low level is not the time to trouble shoot. Just land the beast and figure it out on the ground. Of course that assumes a whole lot, like being within glide of a suitable field. Which points to my reason for preference of singles.
 
I heard this the other day, made me chuckle. "With a multi-engine airplane, you always have enough power to get to the sight of the crash."

On an unrelated note, I had an instructor tell me that on his MEI checkride he was coming in simulated engine out (inop engine at 12"mp) and the examiner wanted him to only pull the operating throttle to idle not the inop throttle. Isn't this dangerous?

This was on a piper seminole PA-44 BTW.
 
On an unrelated note, I had an instructor tell me that on his MEI checkride he was coming in simulated engine out (inop engine at 12"mp) and the examiner wanted him to only pull the operating throttle to idle not the inop throttle. Isn't this dangerous?

This was on a piper seminole PA-44 BTW.

Provided you have the runway made at that point, how else are you going to land?

Richard5 said:
A discontinuance rewarded me for my forethought and he and I marched up to the CP's office for a good shout-fest.

The shoutfest may not have been the best thing to do. After all, a discontinuance is not the same as a disapproval and you set a confrontational tone on the flight to finish things up. Had the examiner failed you for refusing to go aound on one engine, that's another story.
 
By pulling both throttles to idle...otherwise the airplane would yaw and thats not what you want to be doing as you touch down.
 
Congrats man! i remember when i went on my CFI checkride, i was a nervous wreck.... i was the FSDO's first CFI candidate so needless to say i was very nervous! a 6.5 hour oral and a 2.5 hour flight.... NO FUN!!! But Congrats on passing!!!
 
At Born2aviate ---

With respect to pulling both throttles to idle...that would sure make the landing easier! But unfortunately its not realistic. The reason why I would recommend not pulling both throttles to idle is because if you have the INOP engine feathered in the real situation what is the plane going to do? It will yaw toward the operating engine rather than vise versa. In my opinion that is one of the most important parts in learning how to land with one engine INOP. What I have always done in my training and this includes how we performed it on my MEI checkride is to just pull back the operating engine (the simulated INOP engine with be at roughly 12") and just use opposite rudder pressure to stay aligned. The only problem is that the plane really doesn't want to touchdown with the extra power inputs from the "simulated feather" engine. So just be careful not to land flat or nose heavy.

My instructor told me he used to always teach students to pull both throttles back in the flare but.....he had to land a PA31-350 Piper Navajo with a feathered engine and he was surprised how much yaw there was in the flare. Its really not very dangerous, just be aware of the upcoming yaw movement before you make power adjustments!

Let me know what you think
 
If you can who was the Examiner you had in SAT? I am study for the CFI ratings now in GTU and will be heading that way in a few months.
 
Back
Top