Comm practice

[Patch]

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.

In the T-6 you could. At 60, the horizon lined up perfectly with the glareshield. Much easier than trying to judge 55 on the ADI.

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.

If you can't hold 60 degrees by the time you get to the checkride, maybe you shouldn't be there? Seriously, you have to overbank the hell out of the aircraft to get into the "aircraft's performance limitations."

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.

That's a shame, but I do understand what you're saying.

 

[IamBull]

Since aiming for 55 guarantees no arguments, I teach that.

I see what you're driving at. You don't want your students to bust a checkride over a queepy rule. However, I personally think that going for 55 when you're really going for 60 teaches accepting mediocrity. I believe in flying aggressively. By that I mean you should never accept being 1 knot off airspeed, 50 feet off an assigned altitude, etc. Always fight to get back into position as soon as you recognize you're out. If you're supposed to be at 60 degrees of bank (or whatever you're aiming for), shack 60 degrees of bank and fight to hold it.

Just my $.02.

 

[poadeleted20]

I see what you're driving at. You don't want your students to bust a checkride over a queepy rule. However, I personally think that going for 55 when you're really going for 60 teaches accepting mediocrity.

Who said anything about going for 60? All you are really doing in this manuever is demonstrating to the examiner your ability to perform a properly coordinated steep turn with a bank angle of "at least 50 degrees" while staying within 5 degrees of your target bank angle, 100 feet of your entry altitude, and 10 knots of selected airspeed, and rolling out within 10 degrees of the original, all while maintaining proper division of attention between airplane control and orientation, and a good visual lookout.

I believe in flying aggressively. By that I mean you should never accept being 1 knot off airspeed, 50 feet off an assigned altitude, etc. Always fight to get back into position as soon as you recognize you're out. If you're supposed to be at 60 degrees of bank (or whatever you're aiming for), shack 60 degrees of bank and fight to hold it.

Look, if you want to do 60 degree bank steep turns for the fun of it, setting as your own personal standard exactly 60 degrees, plus or minus zip, and whatever airspeed/altitude limits you want, go right ahead -- I'm happy to see such dedication to perfection.

However, this whole thread is about getting ready for the Commercial Pilot-Airplane practical test, and my advice is designed to maximize a trainee's chances of passing that test. The fact is that there are days when holding bank within 1 degree simply isn't possible -- we can't react fast enough to the turbulence, updrafts, and downdrafts. On those days, aiming for 60 without exceeding 60 (and unless you and the examiner are wearing parachutes, exceeding 60 would be a bust no matter what your target bank angle due to the violation of 14 CFR 91.307)) is an impossible task -- an exercise in futility, and a virtual guarantee of failure on the practical test.

So, if y'all want to challenge yourselves in your own personal flying, go right ahead, but if you're training folks for a Commercial Pilot certificate, show them how to maximize their likelihood of passing the practical test, too.

 

[gprellwitz]

The fact is that there are days when holding bank within 1 degree simply isn't possible -- we can't react fast enough to the turbulence, updrafts, and downdrafts. On those days, aiming for 60 without exceeding 60 (and unless you and the examiner are wearing parachutes, exceeding 60 would be a bust no matter what your target bank angle due to the violation of 14 CFR 91.307)) is an impossible task -- an exercise in futility, and a virtual guarantee of failure on the practical test.

Ron,
91.307 says (in part) "...no pilot may excecute any INTENTIONAL maneuver that exceeds..." As I parse this sentence, the adjective "intentional" modifies "manuever", not "exceeds". Therefore, as you are suggesting, if the maneuver is one that you intend, and you unintentionally exceed 60*, you're busted. If it were otherwise, the regulation would state "...no pilot may execute any maneuver that intentionally exceeds...".

I think that this agrees perfectly with what you're saying;it just took me a moment to make sure I read it properly.

To be honest, I don't see the purpose of "intentional maneuver" in the regulation. Even if you're in straight & level flight, that's the intentional maneuver. Yes, it can get away from you (unintentional unusual attitudes), but your intentional maneuver is still straight & level and you busted 60*. In other words, if you're PIC you always have some intentional maneuver, so if you bust 60*...

Oops, here I go again, trying to make sense out of the regs. When will I ever learn? LOL

 

[airspeed]

You could work on keeping the ball centered - sure - but the chandelle and lazy eights are meant to be "heads-up" outside reference maneuvers. Better to pay attention to keeping equal weight on each cheek of your aviator butt. Equal weight = ball in the middle. Right cheek heavier = add pressure to right rudder pedal, etc. You can do that while looking OUTSIDE.

 

[nosehair]

Better to pay attention to keeping equal weight on each cheek of your aviator butt. Equal weight = ball in the middle. Right cheek heavier = add pressure to right rudder pedal, etc. You can do that while looking OUTSIDE.

Yessir, yes you can. and you can increase the student's lerning curve by having him/her USE THE BALL to begin with. Rapid-eye movements between outside and inside-at-ball while noticing the butt cheek feeling as well as the elevator/rudder/aileron decaying feel as well as the decaying sound and such. Don't stop all that stuff, just bring the ball into the cross-check until the butt can feel it without looking at the ball.

I see Commercial Pilots who do these maneuvers with all the appropriate references to pitch/altitude/airspeed and bank/turn rate, but the ball gets all the way out and they don't even notice. How is that possible?

 

[nosehair]

Ron,
91.307 says (in part) "...no pilot may excecute any INTENTIONAL maneuver that exceeds..." As I parse this sentence, the adjective "intentional" modifies "manuever", not "exceeds". Therefore, as you are suggesting, if the maneuver is one that you intend, and you unintentionally exceed 60*, you're busted. If it were otherwise, the regulation would state "...no pilot may execute any maneuver that intentionally exceeds...".

...mmm, potaytoe, potahtoe

I think that this agrees perfectly with what you're saying;it just took me a moment to make sure I read it properly.

...see how we can read the same sentence differently? What matters here is how the Judge will read it.

To be honest, I don't see the purpose of "intentional maneuver" in the regulation.

I think the term "intentional maneuver" in this context means a roll or a loop or some intended maneuver that you know you will exceed 60 degrees to accomplish. That's not rocket-science, and it's not lawyer speak/legalese that you are trying to make it out to be. It is the spirit and the letter of the regulation as it is written.

You should also notice that the continuing of that regulation, part (d) says: "....does not apply to (1) flight tests for certs/ratings; or (2) Spins and other maneuvers required by regulations when given by (i) a CFI..."

This last part "spins and other maneuvers..." has ben clarified in an AC to be all inclusive in the required stall/spin training/awareness for any cert/rating.

So...training and testing are exempt from your semantics anyway.

 

[poadeleted20]

So...training and testing are exempt from your semantics anyway.

No, they aren't. The exemption is only for maneuvers where exceeding those limits is required for a pilot certificate/rating, and there is no requirement to exceed 60 degrees of bank in the Steep Turn maneuver as defined in the Commercial PTS. AFAIK, the only maneuver required for a pilot certificate/rating which requires exceeding those limits is the Spin maneuver in the CFI-A/G PTS's. However, they left the door open in the regulation so they wouldn't have to rewrite the reg (a much longer and more complicated process than rewriting a PTS) if, in the future, some other maneuver exceeding the 91.307 limits should be placed in a PTS.

 

[nosehair]

No, they aren't. The exemption is only for maneuvers where exceeding those limits is required for a pilot certificate/rating, and there is no requirement to exceed 60 degrees of bank in the Steep Turn maneuver as defined in the Commercial PTS. AFAIK, the only maneuver required for a pilot certificate/rating which requires exceeding those limits is the Spin maneuver in the CFI-A/G PTS's. However, they left the door open in the regulation so they wouldn't have to rewrite the reg (a much longer and more complicated process than rewriting a PTS) if, in the future, some other maneuver exceeding the 91.307 limits should be placed in a PTS.

OK, Cap'n Ron, we're going to have it out right here.
What's required for good pilot training is to allow a student to make his/her mistakes with an instuctor. If that student goes beyond 60 degrees of bank in a stall recovery, or if I determine that he/she needs to see the result of insufficient or too much rudder or inappropriate use of ailerons, etc., then that training is required for that student.

I am not going to let you or any other person use this network to further degrade the necessary pilot skill training that is being denied our ignorant innocent young pilot aspirants who don't know what they need to know.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, Cap'n Ron, we're going to have it out right here.
What's required for good pilot training is to allow a student to make his/her mistakes with an instuctor. If that student goes beyond 60 degrees of bank in a stall recovery, or if I determine that he/she needs to see the result of insufficient or too much rudder or inappropriate use of ailerons, etc., then that training is required for that student.

Whether I agree with you or not, I don't think that argument will fly past the FAA, and that's the only point I'm making. If you want to let your trainees exceed the legal limits because you feel it's necessary for their training, that is entirely your choice to make, and it's your ticket on the line if something goes wrong. Based on my experience training students over the last 34 years, I don't think it's necessary to produce safe, competent pilots, but that's my opinion, and you are entitled to yours.

I am not going to let you or any other person use this network to further degrade the necessary pilot skill training that is being denied our ignorant innocent young pilot aspirants who don't know what they need to know.

You can ask any trainee of mine whether they think the training they have received from me "degrade" the overall level of skill in the pilot population.

 

[wsuffa]

Folks,

A gentle reminder to not let the discussions here get personal or turn into fights.

Thanks.

 

[nosehair]

Folks,

A gentle reminder to not let the discussions here get personal or turn into fights.

Thanks.

Thank you, Sir, for that reminder.

And Cap'n Ron, I do respect you as an individual instructor and doing what you think is right. I have a different opinion of what seems to me to be necessary training in the stall/spin area. I also agree that this type of training should be in aerobatic airplanes and entail much more unusual attitude maneuvering, but in the real Cessna/Piper GA world, that ain't gonna happen, so let's deal with what we have.



I have copied/pasted the paragraph from AC 61-67c that clarifies that parachutes are not needed for training in spins and other maneuvers for any certificate or rating. I don't see it on my screen, but I'm posting. Hope it comes up.

Well, that didn't work. Try this: FAA.gov, then click on AC's, then type in the AC # in search, and you can read the AC which says you don't need the parachute and therefore you're not busting any FAR when you exceed 60 degrees bank in training.

I am not trying to tell you how to teach. You have been at it for a while, and so have I.

I'm sure we both can bring a lot of experience to the table.

My observation of human tendencies over the years is that most humans will 'freeze up' momentarily when rolling upside down in an upset, and no matter how much brain-knowledge is there to take corrective action, the limbs won't move. A few times upside down and the fear is gone, or going, and the human can, and will, improve his/her whole outlook on his/her ability and skill to be the master of the machine.

Young instructors and pilots need to hear this. You may not think it is necessary in your training. Maybe you were never afraid of the airplane, and can see no advantage in experiencing the upside down side of the world, but my experience is different.

I was afraid of upside down. I wanted it, but I didn't feel I had control until I did it with an instructor and then I was all over that machine. Let's encourage that kind of training, and not promote that it is illegal when it is not.

OK? That's all. You don't have to agree with my philosophy, but at least let the AC speak for the legality.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you're talking about spin and spin avoidance training (which includes stalls and recoveries), that issue is thoroughly covered by the AC and (more importantly) an FAA legal interpretation -- no chutes required, and as long as you have enough altitude, letting it develop past 60 degrees is fine by me as long as the trainee is far enough along that it won't scare him/her out of flying. If you're talking about steep turns, that is not covered by either, and 60 degrees is a hard and fast limit unless you're wearing chutes. Are we together on this?

In any event, I firmly believe that one can teach precision while aiming for 55 degrees as well as while aiming for 60, and if precision flying is the issue, the exact degree of bank for which the trainee aims within that small range isn't the issue -- it's how well the trainee holds the exact angle desired.

 

[nosehair]

If you're talking about steep turns, that is not covered by either, and 60 degrees is a hard and fast limit unless you're wearing chutes. Are we together on this?

No. Read the AC. That's why I wanted to copy it onto the screen.

Word for word: "Section 91.307(c) does not apply to flight tests for a cert/rating or spins and any other maneuver required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by a CFI."

 

[poadeleted20]

No. Read the AC. That's why I wanted to copy it onto the screen.

Word for word: "Section 91.307(c) does not apply to flight tests for a cert/rating or spins and any other maneuver required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by a CFI."

I know exactly what it says, but I think if you ask FAA Legal (the only folks authorized to provide a definitive interpretation), you will find they say it applies only to those maneuvers for which the PTS requires flight outside the 91.307(c) limits, and AFAIK, the only one like that is the spin task for CFI. Their argument will be that there is no requirement for steep turns beyond 60 degrees in any regulation or in the PTS for any certificate or rating, the exception does not apply to steep turns. You may feel free to check this with your Regional Counsel for a formal opinion, but that's the word I've heard (but not seen in writing).

 

[IamBull]

In any event, I firmly believe that one can teach precision while aiming for 55 degrees as well as while aiming for 60, and if precision flying is the issue, the exact degree of bank for which the trainee aims within that small range isn't the issue -- it's how well the trainee holds the exact angle desired.

Touche

 

[KennyFlys]

In any event, I firmly believe that one can teach precision while aiming for 55 degrees as well as while aiming for 60, and if precision flying is the issue, the exact degree of bank for which the trainee aims within that small range isn't the issue -- it's how well the trainee holds the exact angle desired.

The concept has some amazing applications in flying, visual or instrument. Well said!

 

[nosehair]

but that's the word I've heard (but not seen in writing).

Yeah, that's the problem with all these 'opinions' and 'hearsay'.

Verbal Tech, I call it.

AC 61-67c defines it pretty well, I think. It is in writing. I know it isn't a regulation, and the NTSB judge can take it or leave it, but unless there was some deliberate hot-doggin' associated with exceeding 60*, or some other safety of flight issue involved, no inspector or judge is gonna come after you for employing unusual attitude training in your techniques.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that 55* is as good as 60* for the steep turn training involved, because one of the objectives is to be able to hold a constant bank angle, and 55 is just as good as 60. I was concerned that you or other instructors might feel 'intimidated' from doing 60 or greater, in training, because of a fear that it is 'illegal', which it is not because the regulation is interpreted by the AC which gives full authority to CFI's to do aerobatic maneuvers without having to comply with the parachute law.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was concerned that you or other instructors might feel 'intimidated' from doing 60 or greater, in training, because of a fear that it is 'illegal', which it is not because the regulation is interpreted by the AC which gives full authority to CFI's to do aerobatic maneuvers without having to comply with the parachute law.[emphasis added]

Unless you're an attorney in the office of the FAA Chief Counsel, that is just not true -- it is merely your personal interpretation of the regulation as shaped by your reading of the AC. As you said, you may be able to get an ALJ to agree with you on that, but even that is not legally sufficient if the FAA Chief Counsel's office gives the ALJ an official interpretation to the contrary. For that reason, I strongly caution any CFI from intentionally exceeding 60 degrees of bank in any maneuver other than the spin training required for the CFI ticket (or any other PTS-required maneuver that requires exceeding 60 degrees of bank, but I don't think there are any) unless all occupants are wearing parachutes.

For those with other agendas, I would remind y'all I have always said that absent an official FAA interpretation, I try to read the regulations as conservatively as possible. It may turn out when the Chief Counsel speaks that you can legally do things I recommended against. However, I don't think anyone will ever be busted while following my advice if the Chief Counsel later says I'm wrong. At worst, you didn't do something you could have; you will merely not have done something that might get you in trouble.