Page 6 - April22T

Things I Will Not Do in Multi-Engine Training
As I tell my multi-engine students, instructors cannot safely or accurately simulate an engine failure close to the ground in an airplane. That’s what simulators are for. I highly recommend multi- engine pilots seek out simulator-based training when they first transition to twin-engine types, then alternate between in-airplane and simulator-based training for recurrent and refresher training thereafter.
Instructors can, however, provide a somewhat gentler transition to single-engine operation, either fully feathering the propeller or into the “zero thrust” condition. Once in actual or simulated single-engine flight, we can accurately present single-engine operation, handling and performance, allowing the multi-engine pilot to experience the process from engine securing to single-engine landing. In other words, we can’t give you the full sensation of engine failure, but we can let you experience the process of flying the airplane to a single-engine landing, which NTSB history shows results in at least as many accidents in twin engine airplanes as failing to maintain control through the engine failure itself.
This all brings up the topic of how instructors may safely present the unique skills of flying a multi-engine airplane – the things we do, and in this context, more importantly, the things we will not do in a twin in actual flight. Typical safety protocols have changed over the years to reflect experience and trends in multi-engine instruction. Some of the inherent limitations of safe in-airplane instruction are now offset with the growing availability of Flight Training Devices (FTDs) and other simulators and regulators’
4 • TWIN & TURBINE / April 2022
by Thomas P. Turner
acceptance of these devices toward flight experience requirements.
As a pilot receiving instruction in a twin you discuss training safety protocols with your instructor before you fly. Unless you’re new to twins very often you will act as pilot-in-command and be legally responsible for the conduct and outcome of the flight. More importantly, safety during flight instruction is a team effort; you and the instructor work together to ensure learning occurs while risks are managed.
Obviously, the major difference between training in a single and instruction in a twin is the presentation of engine failures. Whereas in a single-engine airplane the options are naturally quite limited (and obvious), engine failures in a twin require different responses and decisions in
different phases of f light. In some of the phases of f light – most notably takeoff – the risk of providing the training in the airplane outweighs the benefit. For that reason, many instructors impose limitations on their operations and instructors. Here’s what I (and many multi-engine instructors) will and will not do:
1. Minimum runway length: 4,000 feet. For accelerate/stop distance and in the event of a planned engine failure simulation on the runway, a minimum 4,000-foot runway works in most piston twins. The required runway may be longer at higher density altitudes.
2. Minimum runway width for simulating engine failure on the ground: 100 feet. Directional control is the skill to teach and learn if an engine fails during the takeoff roll. To provide a margin for under- or over-correcting, I require a runway at least 100 feet wide for a simulated engine failure on the runway.
3. Maximum speed for simulating engine failure on the ground: 40 knots. FAA guidance for instructors and examiners is that simulated engine failure on the ground should not be initiated at speeds more than 50 percent of the published VMCA speed for that aircraft. Apparently, the reduced inertia and therefore stopping distance at lower speeds offsets the lessened control authority at those speeds. Most piston twin VMCAs are around 80 knots, making 40 knots a good all-types limitation. Further, most original (analog) airspeed indicators become effective at 40 knots.