I appreciate your comments on proficiency. As a retired Army helicopter pilot (CH-47s) we also had minimum hours and iterations of flight tasks (maneuvers). We also were required to fly at least 1 hour every 60 days to maintain currency. Herein lies my frustration. Many say that currency or recency doesn’t equal proficiency. I agree but say it should. When a pilot exceeded his 60 day currency requirement he was required to undergo a proficiency flight evaluation (PFE). If the pilot failed the PFE, he was given additional training until demonstrating proficiency. If the pilot passed the PFE he was considered proficient. Each pilot had semi-annual flight hours to sustain minimum proficiency. Yet rarely did any pilot fail a flight evaluation. It was simply because the evaluator would redo a flight task until the pilot got it right. That did not make the pilot proficient. Obviously, the hour levels were never high enough because of costs. Truth be told pilots need about 500 hours a year and practice doing all the flight tasks to truly be proficient. But military leaders have budget requirements and revert to placing the onus on instructor pilots and evaluators, who, for right or wrong, don’t want to alienate the pilots by documenting unsatisfactory performance which has its own stigma, and also don’t want to fail so many pilots that units become not mission capable and commanders fire them. So, that is the way it truly is.

As a fellow Canadian, I appreciate your humbleness. Very technical twin IFR. Thx😊

Not sure if this is US/CA thing? Certainly in the UK we do single engine missed approaches on piston twins, it is always part of the proficiency check. The drill is to retract gear and flaps without waiting for positive rate as you are unlikely to get positive rate with them deployed.

​@@whiskeybravoaviationIt's never very high nor hot in the UK! 😂

@@igclapp very true! We do always check the OEI performance for departure, destination and alternate though. The danger for UK pilots is visiting our lovely European neighbours where these conditions do exist and becoming complacent to flying from low airfields at mostly ISA temps.

If they were doing an approach with vertical guidance, or a CDFA on a non-precision, then there should have been less concern about sinking below MDA and not making the runway. Reaching minimums, maintaining the same trajectory would take you to the touchdown zone. Nobody should be doing dive-and-drive technique.

@@llaughridge given the fact that you maintain the sinkrate perfectly all the way down to the RWY and maybe still have some crossing altitudes left to check your CDFA non-precision - only then I might agree. But what if you don‘t maintain the sinkrate perfectly (even worse, it happened unnoticed). And you break through the clouds in let‘s say 200‘ and you still have 1.5 NM to go. Other than that there could be obstacles, do you really want to try to power yourself into the RWY with the given single-engine performance? So where do you draw the line? What if there is a rainshower just overhead the threshold, patches if fog…. You don’t see anything. You still land (without autoland)? Or do you try a missed approach then, even lower, with even less options. I don’t know the aircraft they are flying at all, but from what I took out of the video, it seems to have very poor single-engine-performance. Which lead me to thinking that the whole approach to an approach in an OEI condition in that particular aircraft may be worth another thought. Would it be an option to pick an airport with more suitable weather, set the minimum higher (commander‘s discretion) - leaving you with more air aka time under the belly to make a reasonable decision. Of course we all don‘t know what they‘ve briefed and the exercise was all about. It is just a short outtake from many hours in the simulator. I just don‘t feel confortable with the thought that someone has to descend down to an RNAV, non-precision or even ILS minimum before he may or may not see the RWY and is then left with only one option because of the (non existing) performance of the aircraft - land and the runway better be where it is expected. Just some thoughts, and I would love to hear from Luke - because so know I might be so far off, and can learn from him and his experience. And if there is some truth to my thoughts, maybe some of y‘all in the Community take something away from that. In the end I don‘t want to blame - I want us all to understand, comprehend, learn and tomorrow be better and safer pilots than today. Step by step from current to proficient.

A lot more people have died by going below minimums than on a single engine go around on a good engine. The correct answer is zero.

​@@BillliammAre you sure about that? In light piston twins specifically?

I've heard it called the $1,000 button for same reason

So much this. I've seen too many videos where people are wearing harnesses incorrectly which would kill them due to internal injuries. Showing this as an example is horribly irresponsible.

I find 5-point harnesses far more comfy than 3, and even 4-point. The latter always ride up and I'm constantly readjusting.

Interesting. Going to review this with my students

Depends on the situation. Here, if you’re familiar with the area, you could technically do a contact approach since you see the ground. Much safer than single engine go around

I did my rating in this very airplane. Don't trust the autopilot. It caused more problems than it solved, and in the end I hand flew the check ride.

If it's equipped in the plane, you better know how to use it and be proficient.

After getting to the end of the video, do you see any reduction in value of the learning moments of this content having watched it from an American perspective?

@@FlightChopsthat’s the only perspective Americans can see 😂

So under FAA, if you're IR in SEL & add MEL, the IR applies to the ME add on?

Brag.

Somehow I never expected 3rd to require a translation. 🤪

Huge difference! If you fly in IMC and one of the engine is out you not only have to pay attention to properly keep flying according to IFR but also you have to “fight” with controls and settings to keep an airplane under control using just one engine. It is not easy in small twins. A mistake can kill you within seconds.

@@ATOMEK2025 if the engine is already out then it is secured feathered and you are trimmed, and you just need to add appropriate amount of rudder input with changes in power, again there's nothing fundamentally different about flying in imc with a single or a twin. An ILS is an ILS. Airplane responds the same losing an engine if your in the clouds or in the clear.

There is enough of a difference… That the FAA wants us to train on the differences…. In place of figuring it out on your own… Single engine ops in a twin… requires serious dedication to holding airspeed. Crummy things happen when airspeed dwindles away… 😃

Training yes, Multi IFR rating, no. The is NO separate “IFR” rating for multi-engine from the FAA. However, you do need an IFR rating in order to not receive a “VFR only” limitation on your multi-engine rating, as you will have a small amount of IFR TESTING on the multi-engine rating if you already have your IFR rating..

There is NO separate Multi IFR rating in the United States, must be Canadian (as I know Flight Chops is)

I’m mostly with you but there are some extremely challenging approaches out there and a whole spectrum of user friendliness of panels. Multiply flying a very challenging VOR-A approach where the MAP is only a mile or two after passing over a VOR (with a drop from the FAF to circling minimums of over 800 feet) with having to fly needles on traditional gauges and you could be in for an extremely humbling experience. That said I prefer IFR flying to VFR and overall I agree with your sentiment.

Why? As pilot you are trained to use all resources available to you. Is the autopilot a resource you can leverage to move attention to other matters? Then yes you should use it if it is installed

@@jmizzonini Correct, key emphasis should be on the management of it's use. Use the autopilot as a tool and not a crutch, keep the pilot proficient in its use but not over reliant on it.

And the book numbers are gross exaggerations

You realize that people have gotten multiengine training in Apaches and other horrible twins for decades, right? If they learn to maintain directional control and not rely on the remaining engine to keep them aloft, then the plane has fulfilled its role as a basic trainer.

@@llaughridge and this manages to be much, much worse

Makes a great trainer… Like C152… Who does intentional single engine ops… in their real airplane? 😃

@@llaughridgeLoads of people have also DIED training in underpowered twins. I think in the real world, you want to use equipment that prolongs your lifespan the best, not the cheapest.

How does one define real airplane…? Single engine ops at seal level, or in Denver? Turbocharged engines, or normally aspirated? Is a P2006 ever going to be considered a real airplane? Looks like a great economical, trainer… If you can’t make it to the airport, with the gear down… A real pilot can choose to use the second engine or leave the gear up… Is a C152 a real airplane? The only thing not real in Steve’s video… is the simulator…. 😃

Yeah, this airplane in my opinion is a good dedicated multi engine trainer. It is small and economical and has all the complexity you’d need to think about in any twin; However, due to its minimal power, it requires total precision with your hand flying to get good (any?) single performance. Would I buy one as a utility aircraft to fly around with my family? No. 😂

I'm doing my multi training in a DA42, and if we lose an engine after liftoff and the gear is still down, we have to abort the takeoff.

@@aerobaticflying Yesterday I was in the DA 42 sim and tried flying on one engine with flaps up and gear down. About 3,000 feet and 20 degrees C. It sank about 200 feet per minute.

There isn’t a Multi IFR in the U.S. He’s Canadian, and should really clarify that in his titling as yes, the world is not just the U.S., but a huge part of the KZfaq audience IS U.S. pilots, students and enthusiasts.