Checkride?? Steep turns under the hood?

[deyoung]

The hood work for my PPL checkride was turn to a heading, 180-degree turn, track a VOR, and unusual attitude recoveries - that was it.

I imagine a DPE can still ask you to do one, but probably not bust for how you do on it no matter what your results are.

 

[Joe G.]

Thank you to all for the replies.

I wanted to know what the standards are and the experiences of others as I have heard conflicting reports about a DPE asking for applicants to perform the maneuver. Not being able to find any refrence to it in the PTS I wanted confirmation and now have it.

Much appreciated,
Joe

 

[poadeleted20]

I imagine a DPE can still ask you to do one, but probably not bust for how you do on it no matter what your results are.

Here's the FAA's direction to DPE's on this point:

The examiner must conduct the practical test in accordance with the appropriate regulations, PTS, operating limitations of the aircraft, and procedures prescribed in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM). Examiners must not use, or ask the applicant to use, procedures contrary to those specified by the AFM. Under no circumstances may an examiner intentionally allow an applicant to violate a regulation, fail to comply with an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or create a potentially hazardous situation. Practical tests not conducted in accordance with the applicable PTS, regulations, and safe operating practices may be invalid and may be grounds for termination of the examiner’s designation.

a. Practical Test Correlation to Part 61. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The Areas of Operation specified by part 61 for each grade of certificate are encompassed by the Areas of Operation and tasks contained in the PTS. The flight proficiency required by the regulations is stated in terms of Areas of Operation. The specific tasks used to ensure competence in the required Areas of Operation are detailed in the applicable PTS.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Note that steep turns by reference to instruments are not listed in 61.107 and not listed in the Tasks for PP-A.

So, while an examiner can ask you to do steep turns under the hood, doing so would violate FAA Order 8900.2, and place the examiner's designation in jeopardy if the FAA found it s/he had done it.

 

[EdFred]

Here's the FAA's direction to DPE's on this point:

Note that steep turns by reference to instruments are not listed in 61.107 and not listed in the Tasks for PP-A.

So, while an examiner can ask you to do steep turns under the hood, doing so would violate FAA Order 8900.2, and place the examiner's designation in jeopardy if the FAA found it s/he had done it.

Even if it has no bearing on the outcome of the exam, and he is just curious on how well you may perform them?

 

[poadeleted20]

Even if it has no bearing on the outcome of the exam, and he is just curious on how well you may perform them?

That's what FAA Order 8900.2 says. And personally, I don't care for an examiner extending the practical test just to satisfy his/her own curiosity.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Not really, and that's why they're not on even the IR-A PTS. If you fly into a cloud, you're expected to make standard rate turns -- just the same as instrument pilots are expected to do.

The FAA considers anything over 30 bank or 15 pitch on instruments to be an "unusual attitude" from which you are expected to recover promptly and efficiently. They do not expect anyone to intentionally be doing steep turns (i.e., 45 degrees bank or more) as part of any instrument flight.

Not that most certainly is true, and they're also a good exercise for getting the feel of how much g-load you want to pull during a nose-low unusual attitude recovery, which is why we at PIC still teach them as part of IR training even though they're not part of the IR practical test.

Better go look at the ATP PTS:

49 FAA-S-8081-5F

IV. Inflight Maneuvers

Task A: Steep Turns References: 14 CFR part 61; FAA-H-8083-3; FSB Report; POH/AFM. Objective: To determine that the applicant: 1. In actual or simulated instrument conditions, exhibits knowledge of steep turns (if applicable to the airplane) and the factors associated with performance; and, if applicable, wing loading, angle of bank, stall speed, pitch, power requirements, and over-banking tendencies. 2. Selects an altitude recommended by the manufacturer, training syllabus, or other training directive, but in no case lower than 3,000 feet AGL. 3. Establishes the recommended entry airspeed. 4. Rolls into a coordinated turn of 180° or 360° with a bank of at least 45°. Maintains the bank angle within ±5° while in smooth, stabilized flight. 5. Applies smooth coordinated pitch, bank, and power to maintain the specified altitude within ±100 feet and the desired airspeed within ±10 knots. 6. Rolls out of the turn (at approximately the same rate as used to roll into the turn) within ±10° of the entry or specified heading, stabilizes the airplane in a straight-and-level attitude or, at the discretion of the examiner, reverses the direction of turn and repeats the maneuver in the opposite direction. 7. Avoids any indication of an approaching stall, abnormal flight attitude, or exceeding any structural or operating limitation during any part of the maneuver.

 

[poadeleted20]

Better go look at the ATP PTS:

49 FAA-S-8081-5F

IV. Inflight Maneuvers

Task A: Steep Turns References: 14 CFR part 61; FAA-H-8083-3; FSB Report; POH/AFM. Objective: To determine that the applicant: 1. In actual or simulated instrument conditions, exhibits knowledge of steep turns (if applicable to the airplane) and the factors associated with performance; and, if applicable, wing loading, angle of bank, stall speed, pitch, power requirements, and over-banking tendencies. 2. Selects an altitude recommended by the manufacturer, training syllabus, or other training directive, but in no case lower than 3,000 feet AGL. 3. Establishes the recommended entry airspeed. 4. Rolls into a coordinated turn of 180° or 360° with a bank of at least 45°. Maintains the bank angle within ±5° while in smooth, stabilized flight. 5. Applies smooth coordinated pitch, bank, and power to maintain the specified altitude within ±100 feet and the desired airspeed within ±10 knots. 6. Rolls out of the turn (at approximately the same rate as used to roll into the turn) within ±10° of the entry or specified heading, stabilizes the airplane in a straight-and-level attitude or, at the discretion of the examiner, reverses the direction of turn and repeats the maneuver in the opposite direction. 7. Avoids any indication of an approaching stall, abnormal flight attitude, or exceeding any structural or operating limitation during any part of the maneuver.

The fact that it's a required maneuver for the ATP is irrelevant to my statement. It is still an "unusual attitude" for instrument flight purposes, and prompt recovery is expected during instrument flights even if the FAA wants prospective ATP's to demonstrate their complete mastery of the aircraft by doing them under the hood on the ATP-Airplane ride. See the IFH for details.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The fact that it's a required maneuver for the ATP is irrelevant to my statement. It is still an "unusual attitude" for instrument flight purposes, and prompt recovery is expected during instrument flights even if the FAA wants prospective ATP's to demonstrate their complete mastery of the aircraft by doing them under the hood on the ATP-Airplane ride. See the IFH for details.

Not irrelevant. The IFH does not even call steep turns an unusual attitude.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not irrelevant. The IFH does not even call steep turns an unusual attitude.

You are correct as far as you go (it doesn't say "steep turns are an unusual attitude"), but you ignore the definition of an unusual attitude ("an airplane attitude not normally required for instrument flight"), and a 45-degree bank is most definitely "an airplane attitude not normally required for instrument flight", which is why steep turns are no longer part of the IR PTS. See page 7-22 for a fuller discussion.

 

[eetrojan]

I'm guessing that you also meant to bold this PTS language which seems to say that a steep turn is not in and of itself an abnormal flight attitude:

Better go look at the ATP PTS:

49 FAA-S-8081-5F

IV. Inflight Maneuvers

Task A: Steep Turns References: 14 CFR part 61; FAA-H-8083-3; FSB Report; POH/AFM. Objective: To determine that the applicant: 1. In actual or simulated instrument conditions, exhibits knowledge of steep turns (if applicable to the airplane) and the factors associated with performance; and, if applicable, wing loading, angle of bank, stall speed, pitch, power requirements, and over-banking tendencies. 2. Selects an altitude recommended by the manufacturer, training syllabus, or other training directive, but in no case lower than 3,000 feet AGL. 3. Establishes the recommended entry airspeed. 4. Rolls into a coordinated turn of 180° or 360° with a bank of at least 45°. Maintains the bank angle within ±5° while in smooth, stabilized flight. 5. Applies smooth coordinated pitch, bank, and power to maintain the specified altitude within ±100 feet and the desired airspeed within ±10 knots. 6. Rolls out of the turn (at approximately the same rate as used to roll into the turn) within ±10° of the entry or specified heading, stabilizes the airplane in a straight-and-level attitude or, at the discretion of the examiner, reverses the direction of turn and repeats the maneuver in the opposite direction. 7. Avoids any indication of an approaching stall, abnormal flight attitude, or exceeding any structural or operating limitation during any part of the maneuver.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm guessing that you also meant to bold this PTS language which seems to say that a steep turn is not in and of itself an abnormal flight attitude:

The word we were discussing was "unusual", and the IFH clearly states that a 45-degree bank constitutes an unusual attitude. See the definition of "unusual attitude" and the discussion of Steep Turns on page 7-22.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You are correct as far as you go (it doesn't say "steep turns are an unusual attitude"), but you ignore the definition of an unusual attitude ("an airplane attitude not normally required for instrument flight"), and a 45-degree bank is most definitely "an airplane attitude not normally required for instrument flight", which is why steep turns are no longer part of the IR PTS. See page 7-22 for a fuller discussion.

Apparently we are going back into one of your "interpretations". 7-22 discusses steep turns and doesn't call them "unusual attitudes".

Where are you seeing the statement "45 degree banks are not required for instrument flight"? If not required, then why are they taught, and tested for other ratings?

 

[Henning]

I had to do unusual attitude recovery under the hood, fly straight and level from there for a couple of minutes, do a standard rate 1min/180° turn, establish on course and that was the end of hood work.

I don't know if they can fail you for losing it in a steep turn and busting that. I can see them asking you to do it as a way to realistically enter the "Unusual Attitude" phase. IOW, they expect you to lose it, and then recover from it. I think it would be a better test than having you let go and close your eyes while they manipulate the plane. Having you try to do something that you may do for real to lose attitude control, that's a real learning experience.

 

[poadeleted20]

Apparently we are going back into one of your "interpretations". 7-22 discusses steep turns and doesn't call them "unusual attitudes".

Where are you seeing the statement "45 degree banks are not required for instrument flight"?

The same place you see the statement that they are -- it doesn't exist. However, the IFH says an "unusual attitude" is "an airplane attitude not normally required for instrument flight", and there is no requirement whatsoever for 45-degree banks for instrument flight. Also, note that the definition of a "steep turn" changes between visual and instrument flight, with anything over 45 degrees being a steep turn for visual flight, but anything over standard rate been a steep turn for instrument flight.

If not required, then why are they taught, and tested for other ratings?

The only certificate/rating for which steep turns by reference to instruments are required or tested is the ATP, and as I said above, the only possible explanation for that is to demonstrate absolute mastery of the aircraft at the ATP level, not because it is "normally required for instrument flight". Were 45-degree bank turns "normally required for instrument flight", they would be listed as required "flight proficiency" in 61.65(c) (which they are not) and part of the IR-A PTS (from they were eliminated about 10 years ago specifically because they aren't a normal part of instrument flying).

 

[RotorAndWing]

The same place you see the statement that they are -- it doesn't exist. However, the IFH says an "unusual attitude" is "an airplane attitude not normally required for instrument flight", and there is no requirement whatsoever for 45-degree banks for instrument flight. Also, note that the definition of a "steep turn" changes between visual and instrument flight, with anything over 45 degrees being a steep turn for visual flight, but anything over standard rate been a steep turn for instrument flight.

Sorry, but the "logic" you are using doesn't quite cut it.

The only certificate/rating for which steep turns by reference to instruments are required or tested is the ATP, and as I said above, the only possible explanation for that is to demonstrate absolute mastery of the aircraft at the ATP level, not because it is "normally required for instrument flight".

Steep turns are also tested on type ratings, which can be done at the Private and Commercial level (except on FBW aircraft).

Were 45-degree bank turns "normally required for instrument flight", they would be part of the IR-A PTS, and they are no longer is such a part -- eliminated about 10 years ago specifically because they aren't a normal part of instrument flying.

Have the reference for that?

 

[poadeleted20]

I had to do unusual attitude recovery under the hood, fly straight and level from there for a couple of minutes, do a standard rate 1min/180° turn, establish on course and that was the end of hood work.

I would reiterate that for quite some time the PP-A PTS has required more than that under the hood, including six specific tasks:

Task A: Straight‐and‐Level Flight​

Task B: Constant Airspeed Climbs​

Task C: Constant Airspeed Descents​

Task D: Turns to Headings​

Task E: Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes​

Task F: Radio Communications, Navigation Systems/Facilities, and Radar Services​

​

I don't know if they can fail you for losing it in a steep turn and busting that.

They can certainly fail you for that under visual conditions, since Steep Turns is a required Task, but only by visual reference. They cannot do that under the hood.​

​

I can see them asking you to do it as a way to

realistically enter the "Unusual Attitude" phase. IOW, they expect you to lose it, and then recover from it.​

I suppose that would be within a DPE's discretion, although I've never heard of one doing it that way on either a PP-A or IR-A ride.​

​

I think it would be a better test than having you let go and close your eyes while they manipulate the plane.

That is the way I've almost always seen it done, although I've seen some who, for the nose low u/a, just tell you to let go and close your eyes, then let the plane wander off into a diving spiral as is typical of the "diverted attention" scenario (e.g., digging around in the back seat for a chart). Of course, for the nose-high u/a recovery, they need to do something to force the plane nose up -- and rolling the trim full nose up is commonly part of that one, simulating runway trim or a hardover autopilot failure.​

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry, but the "logic" you are using doesn't quite cut it.

Perhaps not with you, but it is what the book says, and it's what AFS-600/800 will tell you if you ask.

Steep turns are also tested on type ratings, which can be done at the Private and Commercial level (except on FBW aircraft).

...but still to ATP standards. The ATP-PTS provides no relaxation of the standard for that situation, IOW, absolute mastery of the aircraft.

Have the reference for that?

The explanation the FAA provided for the change at the time. They said they were eliminating the Basic Instrument Flight Maneuvers area as a separate and distinct element, and that this area would be graded based on the performance of these tasks as part of normal instrument flight procedures. Since steep turns were not a part of any normal instrument flight procedure, that Task was eliminated completely (along with the stalls and slow flight tasks, for the same reason). AFS-600 should have a copy of the discussion in their files if you need to see it.

I do remember full panel steep turns being required as part of my IR practical test in 1971, as well as stalls and slow flight (partial panel?), but that's just history.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The explanation the FAA provided for the change at the time. They said they were eliminating the Basic Instrument Flight Maneuvers area as a separate and distinct element, and that this area would be graded based on the performance of these tasks as part of normal instrument flight procedures. Since steep turns were not a part of any normal instrument flight procedure, that Task was eliminated completely (along with the stalls and slow flight tasks, for the same reason). AFS-600 should have a copy of the discussion in their files if you need to see it.

I do remember full panel steep turns being required as part of my IR practical test in 1971, as well as stalls and slow flight (partial panel?), but that's just history.

So no reference except " I heard".......

OK.

 

[poadeleted20]

So no reference except " I heard".......

No, it was in writing from AFS-600 as part of their explanation for the significant changes from version C to version D of the IR PTS. I didn't keep a copy, but I'm sure AFS-600 will provide one if you ask them.

 

[ThreatLVL350]

Your mothers are fat