Comm practice

Why is it such a big deal whether it's 55 or 50? It should be 60. What's so hard about that?
What's so hard about that is that if you aim for 60 and go over it by one degree, you've just violated 14 CFR 91.307(c)(1). Anyway, I don't see why it "should be 60." The issue is mastery of the aircraft during maneuvers, not the specific number of degrees of bank. The additional control skill going from 45 +/- 10 to 55 +/- 5 is, IMO, sufficient to demonstrate that one is ready to carry paying passengers rather than just friends and relatives.
 
What's so hard about that is that if you aim for 60 and go over it by one degree, you've just violated 14 CFR 91.307(c)(1). Anyway, I don't see why it "should be 60." The issue is mastery of the aircraft during maneuvers, not the specific number of degrees of bank. The additional control skill going from 45 +/- 10 to 55 +/- 5 is, IMO, sufficient to demonstrate that one is ready to carry paying passengers rather than just friends and relatives.

Of course, you're ignoring 91.307(d)(1) when you say that:

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating;

Seems to me a checkride would qualify as a flight test for pilot certification or rating.
 
Of course, you're ignoring 91.307(d)(1) when you say that:

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating;

Seems to me a checkride would qualify as a flight test for pilot certification or rating.
I suppose that might be true for the practical test, but you'd have to either wear chutes during training, never err during training (and this is one instructor who wouldn't bet his ticket on a student's ability to aim for 60 degrees of bank without going one degree over 60), never train/practice the maneuver before the checkride, or rewrite the PTS to require a bank of over 60 degrees, and none of those seem feasible.
 
What's so hard about that is that if you aim for 60 and go over it by one degree, you've just violated 14 CFR 91.307(c)(1). Anyway, I don't see why it "should be 60." The issue is mastery of the aircraft during maneuvers, not the specific number of degrees of bank. The additional control skill going from 45 +/- 10 to 55 +/- 5 is, IMO, sufficient to demonstrate that one is ready to carry paying passengers rather than just friends and relatives.


:rolleyes: Oh come on. Are you a lawyer or a pilot? That is by far the queepiest argument I have ever seen. "Oh no, if you go over by one degree you will instantly be in violation and the FAA will shoot you down with a surface-to-air emergency license revocation."

Why do I like 60 degrees of bank? Well for one, it's really easy to spot on the ADI. I've never flown with an ADI that clearly marks the 55 degree reference. Second, it's a clean 2 G turn. Not that the 1.8 ish of 55 degree isn't a good SOP to gauge the turn, but I'll refer back to my first comment - ease to set.

I'll refer to Skyhog's post regarding the actual legality of the matter, but you're being silly.

30, 45, 60... nice round numbers, yeah?
 
:rolleyes: Oh come on. Are you a lawyer or a pilot? That is by far the queepiest argument I have ever seen. "Oh no, if you go over by one degree you will instantly be in violation and the FAA will shoot you down with a surface-to-air emergency license revocation."

FAA will shoot you down with a surface-to-air emergency CERTIFICATE revocation. :D:D:D
 
I suppose that might be true for the practical test, but you'd have to either wear chutes during training, never err during training (and this is one instructor who wouldn't bet his ticket on a student's ability to aim for 60 degrees of bank without going one degree over 60), never train/practice the maneuver before the checkride, or rewrite the PTS to require a bank of over 60 degrees, and none of those seem feasible.

You could practice solo, no?

I bet you've never ever exceeded the speed limit by one knot (get it? a little aviation humor for ya ;) ) either.

What about the dudes that do the instrument unusable attitude recovery training? Do they make you wear parachutes while going up to 90 degrees of bank?
 
Of course, you're ignoring 91.307(d)(1) when you say that:

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating;

Seems to me a checkride would qualify as a flight test for pilot certification or rating.

But would a practice session qualify? Or are you thinking the first time to try this would be on the PTS?
 
But would a practice session qualify? Or are you thinking the first time to try this would be on the PTS?

Pretty sure big brother isn't watching if you go to 61-69 degrees of bank. Know what I'm saying?
 
You could practice solo, no?

I bet you've never ever exceeded the speed limit by one knot (get it? a little aviation humor for ya ;) ) either.

What about the dudes that do the instrument unusable attitude recovery training? Do they make you wear parachutes while going up to 90 degrees of bank?

Well, actually yeah they did. Wore chutes throughout the Bonanza acro phase and in the Lear for the full on upset recovery program. The Bo was the acro model with the quick release door and the Lear was equipped with explosive bolts on the door. Don't know if I would have made it out the door and miss the wing and miss the engines but the spirit of the reg was met. In both airplanes we went well beyond where chutes aren't required. It was great fun and a terrific learning tool.
 
Well, you weigh like 100 pounds less than me, and your flight bag is probably 100 pounds less than mine too. :rolleyes:

WHy do you need a 104 pound flight bag? All ya need is charts, pencil and pens, 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 pad of paper, and an AFD.
 
WHy do you need a 104 pound flight bag? All ya need is charts, pencil and pens, 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 pad of paper, and an AFD.

Well, let's see...

I have in my flight bag:

1) Charts. Sectionals for most of the US. I have sectionals from New York to Miami to Houston to Salt Lake City to Klamath Falls. No, they're not all current, but I have the most current of each that I have in the bag. I also have L-charts that stretch from Montana to New York to Houston. I have approach plates for WI, IL, IA, and MI in there right now. Just the charts probably account for half the weight of my bag or more. Do I need 'em all? Not really. But I like having 'em in the truck sometimes, and besides, I need a heavy flight bag so I can throw it in the back of the Arrow IV and be within weight and balance limitations. :rofl:

2) A/FD? Singular? Hah. I think I have four regions in there right now.

3) Pencils, pens, paper? Check. I still have some "Gaston's Landing Judge" pencils. :)

4) Stuff you haven't listed above: Good ol' manual E6B (the metal one). VFR and IFR plotters. Flashlights (the dimmable white/red LED one as primary, the seatbelt one for reading charts, the shake one for if I run out of batteries, and the one that flashes SOS as another backup, and just in case...) My kneeboard, and my yoke board. Batteries. Three headsets. Handheld radio. Logbook. IFR Flight File which contains my checklists, a map of the VOR's used for AIRMETs and such, some flight planning forms, and assorted approach plates and airport diagrams. A couple of POH's. My Viban hood. A barf bag for pax (never needed, thankfully). Pilotcast business cards. Three pads of those little Sporty's ATIS post-its that I never use.

And that's just off the top of my head. Yes, I have cancer of the flight bag... :eek:
 
Well, actually yeah they did. Wore chutes throughout the Bonanza acro phase and in the Lear for the full on upset recovery program. The Bo was the acro model with the quick release door and the Lear was equipped with explosive bolts on the door. Don't know if I would have made it out the door and miss the wing and miss the engines but the spirit of the reg was met. In both airplanes we went well beyond where chutes aren't required. It was great fun and a terrific learning tool.

At that point the chutes are just oversized seat cushions. ;)
 
Well, let's see...

I have in my flight bag:
<HUGE snip!>
And that's just off the top of my head. Yes, I have cancer of the flight bag... :eek:
Ummmm... ya think? :D

I thought I overdid it just by having manuals for the four airplanes I fly. I'm about to add two more. There are already three on the bookshelf.
 
1) Charts. Sectionals for most of the US. I have sectionals from New York to Miami to Houston to Salt Lake City to Klamath Falls. No, they're not all current, but I have the most current of each that I have in the bag. I also have L-charts that stretch from Montana to New York to Houston.

Dude, Aircharts, www.airchart.com

Three easy to use spiral bound books cover the entire USA for both sectionals and L. Easy to update, too.
 
Do they make you wear parachutes while going up to 90 degrees of bank?
As for me, I've only done it in a Lear simulator, not the real airplane. I guess you could bail out, but I don't think the chute is going to deploy in the 12 feet down to the floor of the sim bay. :dunno:
 
As for me, I've only done it in a Lear simulator, not the real airplane. I guess you could bail out, but I don't think the chute is going to deploy in the 12 feet down to the floor of the sim bay. :dunno:

:rofl: Touche'
 
If y'all want to ask what's legal, I've laid it out. If y'all want to know what violations of the FAR's you can get away with, I'm out of the fight and you're on your own. Personally, I train my trainees within the parameters set forth by the FAA -- I don't take them outside the lines just for kicks. And if the only reason you fly steep turns at 60 rather than 55 is that there's a line on your AI that says 60 but not one for 55, well, I think you're missing the point of what the Commercial Pilot certificate is all about. Finally, for practical test purposes, that 60-degree line provides an easy mark for the examiner to tell if you've broken an FAR during the checkride, and breaking an FAR on the practical test is an automatic failure.

BTW, Patch, out of curiosity, just how much fighter time do you have? Is any of it in the F-5 in your avatar?
 
Last edited:
If y'all want to ask what's legal, I've laid it out. If y'all want to know what violations of the FAR's you can get away with, I'm out of the fight and you're on your own. Personally, I train my trainees within the parameters set forth by the FAA -- I don't take them outside the lines just for kicks. And if the only reason you fly steep turns at 60 rather than 55 is that there's a line on your AI that says 60 but not one for 55, well, I think you're missing the point of what the Commercial Pilot certificate is all about. Finally, for practical test purposes, that 60-degree line provides an easy mark for the examiner to tell if you've broken an FAR during the checkride, and breaking an FAR on the practical test is an automatic failure.

BTW, Patch, out of curiosity, just how much fighter time do you have? Is any of it in the F-5 in your avatar?


Can I draw a 55 degree line on my AI, or will the examiner balk at that? (honest question)
 
Can I draw a 55 degree line on my AI, or will the examiner balk at that? (honest question)
If you can figure out how to do that without disassembling it (I assume you're not a certified instrument shop), I don't see why not, but I don't see the need for it, either. Just put the 60-degree mark upside of the rear-sight-like gizmo at the top of the AI, and you'll be close enough to 55 that nobody will ever quibble.
 
I thought commercial maneuvers were "visual maneuvers"?

I actually flew most better with the instruments covered.
 
If y'all want to ask what's legal, I've laid it out. If y'all want to know what violations of the FAR's you can get away with, I'm out of the fight and you're on your own. Personally, I train my trainees within the parameters set forth by the FAA -- I don't take them outside the lines just for kicks. And if the only reason you fly steep turns at 60 rather than 55 is that there's a line on your AI that says 60 but not one for 55, well, I think you're missing the point of what the Commercial Pilot certificate is all about. Finally, for practical test purposes, that 60-degree line provides an easy mark for the examiner to tell if you've broken an FAR during the checkride, and breaking an FAR on the practical test is an automatic failure.

Fair enough. I just find that 60 is easier to set and fly visually, but of course slightly more difficult to hold. I do agree that a checkride is no place to test the limits, but I should hope an examiner would be more big picture than that if you do happen to kiss 61 degrees. I definitely wouldn't advocate sitting on the low side of the 50-60 degree range. While it may not bust any FARs, it definitely won't make you a better pilot.
 
I thought commercial maneuvers were "visual maneuvers"?
They are, but what do you think the examiner looks at and points to when judging whether you're at the right bank angle? Ain't no degree marks on the big AI outside the windshield.
 
Fair enough. I just find that 60 is easier to set and fly visually, but of course slightly more difficult to hold.
If you can tell the difference between 55 and 60 visually (outside references, AI covered), you're a better man than I am, Charlie Brown.;)

I do agree that a checkride is no place to test the limits, but I should hope an examiner would be more big picture than that if you do happen to kiss 61 degrees.
If the examiner tells you to fly 55 degrees for the steep turn, and you just "kiss 61" and come right back below 60, you've not "consistently exceeded" the standards, and you're still in the realm of "satisfactory performance." However, if you choose to aim for 60, you are putting yourself in a corner, because your +/- 5 range could lead you into consistently exceeding the FAR no-chute limit as well as the aircraft's performance limitations, and that's a failure.

I definitely wouldn't advocate sitting on the low side of the 50-60 degree range. While it may not bust any FARs, it definitely won't make you a better pilot.
The discussion here isn't exactly about making you a "better pilot," just making you a "Commercial Pilot." The two are, regrettably, not always synonymous. In any event, since the Commercial PTS says "at least 50" and within 5 degrees of the desired angle, and the FAR's say not over 60 without a chute, aiming for 55 seems to me to be the best way to achieve the stated goal of passing the Commercial Pilot practical test.
 
aiming for 55 seems to me to be the best way to achieve the stated goal of passing the Commercial Pilot practical test.

As much as I dislike parts of the FAR. As much as I often argue with Ron. I agree with him here. :yes::yes:
 
Last edited:
They are, but what do you think the examiner looks at and points to when judging whether you're at the right bank angle? Ain't no degree marks on the big AI outside the windshield.
Right, but he's expecting the examinees to be looking outside. Although, I swear mine knew where I was by looking at the visual points I chose.
 
Must be a cheeseland thing. On this side of the lake we can actually figure out how to stay in one area.

No need to pick on my state. It's not a "cheeseland" thing. I did my commercial training in Iowa. As far as actually figuring out how to stay in one area, I'm not saying it's the only way to do it. Are you implying that you don't agree that it's one way to do it?

Both DE's never said anything about using a crosswind when doing the Chandelle, and I said "we enter on downwind..."

Because a DE didn't say it was wrong, all other options are automatically wrong? Or vice versa... if the DE said it was right, would that make all other options automatically not right?

Why not throw fuel on the fire... Consider that "maximum performance" could be judged partly by climb angle, which will be steeper into the wind. So under the same set of conditions (a certain entry airspeed, power setting, etc.) you will have a steeper climb angle upwind than downwind. Most of your altitude is gained in the first half of the maneuver, so it makes sense to start on a crosswind heading and turn into the wind. Since the maneuver completes a 180-degree turn, you also maximize your time exposed to a headwind this way, and voilà - you just climbed as steeply as possible in a given chunk of sky.

Guess what though. The Airplane Flying Handbook just mentions maximum climb rate and no one cares about angle. Maybe that's just me and my imaginary "box canyon" idea. I think the angle thing and the "less drift" idea are one in the same, which is probably why my school taught it.

My point is that there is no right way to enter this maneuver, as far as I know, so it's a matter of preference or convenience. I was just taught the crosswind thing and it makes the most sense to me. As far as the downwind entry idea, that is fine too. It's not a "must" though. Downwind entries are for ground reference maneuvers, and the chandelle isn't a ground reference maneuver -- it's a performance maneuver like a steep turn. This also shows that my maximum climb angle idea isn't important, either, because I repeat: it's not a ground reference maneuver, even though you do look outside at a few ground references.

Your DE's not going to say you're wrong for your choice Ed, because you aren't. When I entered on crosswind with my commercial and CFI DEs, they didn't say I was wrong either.

What's wrong with being above 8,000?

Nothing. I was just picking some random number to illustrate that the TB20 climbs fast. We'd usually go up to 8,500-ish as a maximum before we'd come back down. It's arbitrary.

It's probably as arbitrary as debating how to enter a chandelle... so, now I'm done. My two cents.

**Hopefully has explained herself, and looks forward to flying later today.**
 
hey maybe its an iowa thing, thats what I was taught at Iowa Lakes too Kate. makes sense to me to maximize climb in a tight area, for the practical application of the manuever. and it keeps you in the same area when practicing.

have fun flying.
 
I have many times heard about entering the non-ground referenced Commercial maneuvers (chandelles and Lazy-8's) upwind, downwind, or crosswind; I've never seen the point. Since these maneuvers are not ground referenced, the effect of wind is not a factor, so whether you enter upwind, downwind, or crosswind, the maneuver is flown the same.
 
A long time ago I seem to remember having to do 60 degree turns at the private pilot level. That was the early 80's,

All flight maneuvers are supposed to be taught as described in the Airplane Flying Handbook. The PTS references this Handbook. The Practical Test is designed to test these maneuvers in a standard manner.

The Airplane Flying Handbook describes Steep Turns at 45 - 60 degrees. Thats how they should be taught. And that's how maneuvers were taught and tested back (in the 60's?) by the AFH (formerly the Flight Training Handbook) and the Examiner specified the specificity of the maneuver.

But, somewhere after publication of the PTS, flight training has become a minimum standard of getting to the specific skills of the rote maneuvers of the PTS, instead of teaching the overall skills described in the AFH and being subjected to performing as specified by the examiner.

Yeah, you had some old hanger-on who still realized the value of flying to the limits.

And no, you don't bust an FAR by 'accidently' going over 60 degrees.

FAR 61.307(c)"...no pilot may excecute any INTENTIONAL maneuver that exceeds...."

How do you think we can practice stalls and let the student go over 60 degrees in learning to recover?
 
All flight maneuvers are supposed to be taught as described in the Airplane Flying Handbook. The PTS references this Handbook. The Practical Test is designed to test these maneuvers in a standard manner.

The Airplane Flying Handbook describes Steep Turns at 45 - 60 degrees. Thats how they should be taught. And that's how maneuvers were taught and tested back (in the 60's?) by the AFH (formerly the Flight Training Handbook) and the Examiner specified the specificity of the maneuver.

But, somewhere after publication of the PTS, flight training has become a minimum standard of getting to the specific skills of the rote maneuvers of the PTS, instead of teaching the overall skills described in the AFH and being subjected to performing as specified by the examiner.

Yeah, you had some old hanger-on who still realized the value of flying to the limits.

And no, you don't bust an FAR by 'accidently' going over 60 degrees.

FAR 61.307(c)"...no pilot may excecute any INTENTIONAL maneuver that exceeds...."

How do you think we can practice stalls and let the student go over 60 degrees in learning to recover?

I found my old maneuvers book and it did say the 45 degree was the desired angle of bank but it did also go on to talk about exactly what you posted. My IP was also an F111A IP and former F4 pilot, so that is probably why we did things to the limits a lot.
 
For what it's worth, the Jeppesen comm/IR textbook says to do steep turns at 50 degrees, and they suggest doing chandelles into the wind to minimize drift.
-harry
 
For what it's worth, the Jeppesen comm/IR textbook says to do steep turns at 50 degrees, and they suggest doing chandelles into the wind to minimize drift.
-harry
I've heard and read the same. But, which 90 degree should be into the wind? Personally, as someone else said (Ron, I think), it's not a ground reference maneuver. Wind should be irrelevant. You simply fly it as specified with coordination.

Private level steep turns are at 45 degrees bank. Commercial level are at 55 degrees. There is no PTS on amount of bank but anything less wouldn't be "steep."
 
Private level steep turns are at 45 degrees bank. Commercial level are at 55 degrees. There is no PTS on amount of bank but anything less wouldn't be "steep."
I think you should review the Private and Commercial PTS's. In Area V Task A, the Commercial-Airplane calls for "a coordinated 360° steep turn with at least a 50° bank," while the PP-A PTS Area V says that for the Steep Turn, the applicant "Rolls into a coordinated 360° turn; maintains a 45° bank." Of course, 91.307 provides a regulatory maximum of 60 degrees unless both occupants are wearing chutes (since a bank in excess of 60 is not required by the PTS), and even then, you'd bump into the g-limit at 75-77 degrees (Normal/Utility) unless you're flying something certified in the Acrobatic category.

Thus, the CPL applicant has the option of any target bank s/he wants, as long as s/he maintains at least 50 and no more than 60 degrees throughout. You could aim for 52, and if you stay at no less than 50 (task lower limit) and no more than 57 (5-degree bank angle tolerance limit), you'd be fine. Likewise, a CPL applicant could aim for 57, but would have to stay between 52 (5-degree bank angle tolerance limit) and 60 (91.307 limit). However, as a believer in the Sundance Kid's advice to aim for the middle (so if you miss a little, you still hit something), I teach my CP trainees to aim for 55, and have a full 5 degrees of tolerance all the way around. OTOH, because of the single target bank angle and 5-degree bank tolerance in element 5 of that task in the PP PTS, the PPL applicant must maintain 45 +/- 5 degrees (i.e., stay between 40 and 50 degrees all the way around) -- no choice there.
 
Last edited:
My mistake. I should have delayed posting. I was last looking at the CFI PTS before I had to close the book and drive down the road. The "55 degrees" came from what I had been pushed to do during comm training which worked well for me.
 
All flight maneuvers are supposed to be taught as described in the Airplane Flying Handbook. The PTS references this Handbook. The Practical Test is designed to test these maneuvers in a standard manner.

The Airplane Flying Handbook describes Steep Turns at 45 - 60 degrees. Thats how they should be taught. And that's how maneuvers were taught and tested back (in the 60's?) by the AFH (formerly the Flight Training Handbook) and the Examiner specified the specificity of the maneuver.

But, somewhere after publication of the PTS, flight training has become a minimum standard of getting to the specific skills of the rote maneuvers of the PTS, instead of teaching the overall skills described in the AFH and being subjected to performing as specified by the examiner.

Yeah, you had some old hanger-on who still realized the value of flying to the limits.

And no, you don't bust an FAR by 'accidently' going over 60 degrees.

FAR 61.307(c)"...no pilot may excecute any INTENTIONAL maneuver that exceeds...."

How do you think we can practice stalls and let the student go over 60 degrees in learning to recover?

:yes:
 
How do you think we can practice stalls and let the student go over 60 degrees in learning to recover?
There are limits to how far you let the trainee go, and I take control and stop things before we violate the regs or the aircraft limitations. That's part of the CFI checkride, too -- the examiner sees just how far you let it go before stepping in.
 
... as long as s/he maintains at least 50 and no more than 60 degrees throughout.
Again, leaving out the issue of the 60 degree limit on the high end, I'd argue that the PTS, as written, does not imply a minimum of 50 "throughout". The PTS requires 50 degrees as the lower limit of the entry bank ("... rolls into a ... steep turn with at least a 50 degree bank..."), and allows +- 5 degrees from that throughout ("... maintains the entry ... bank, +- 5 degrees...").

So if you choose 50 as the entry bank, you then have to maintain 45-55 throughout. Least that's how I interpret those words.
-harry
 
Again, leaving out the issue of the 60 degree limit on the high end, I'd argue that the PTS, as written, does not imply a minimum of 50 "throughout". The PTS requires 50 degrees as the lower limit of the entry bank ("... rolls into a ... steep turn with at least a 50 degree bank..."), and allows +- 5 degrees from that throughout ("... maintains the entry ... bank, +- 5 degrees...").

So if you choose 50 as the entry bank, you then have to maintain 45-55 throughout. Least that's how I interpret those words.
-harry
I could argue either side of that one, but I find that when my trainee doesn't have to quibble with the examiner over the meaning of the PTS, the ride goes better. Since aiming for 55 guarantees no arguments, I teach that.
 
Back
Top