CPL cross countries - what's the point?

[Kritchlow]

Nah. That's the same but you were supposed to pick a pitch angle to freeze at that would put you near to MCA at the top. Since you're also still slowing you'd need more back pressure as it got slower to maintain that frozen pitch angle.

You'd keep lowering the bank at the end so you could accelerate out of MCA without any altitude loss at the end.

Now to avoid any indication of a stall, even the horn, that frozen pitch will be mighty shallow. Can't even let the horn beep without having to immediately initiate a stall recovery.

You already had a 30 degree back angle limit.

Whether DPEs will enforce that or even call the maneuver a bust if you have to come out of it to deal with the horn beeping, especially after this has been the new standard for a number of years, remains to be seen.

So it's gotten to be a really begnign maneuver.

The "story" behind the requirement for the chandelle has always been that it was to prepare a pilot to reverse course and gain as much altitude as possible during the reversal. Kinda, but not the same as a "canyon turn" as we discuss them for mountain flying. A more simplistic version of that. Whether that was an OWT just used to justify it, I can't say.

But the new standard won't come anywhere near max performance on altitude gain-loss. It'll end up much more of a finesse maneuver like the lady eights, which are also bank limited and speed limited because of the need to cross the entry line very close to entry speed.

All very shallow and not "sloppy" but that's what you'll be fighting the most. Keeping the maneuver going with tiny bank and pitch changes.

The sad part is, at least for the chandelles, I bet many students will think the really shallow and limited ones are "hard to do" within a few years and will never see one that tops off at close to MCA.

Without reading the entire novel, I do believe we are saying basically the same thing.

 

[RussR]

To be honest it's more the attitude.... as expressed in this thread.

Truth is at one point in history it was actually not extremely easy to pass this ride.

Okay, Now I'm confused. Your previous post implies that the experience requirements have become easy compared to in the past, whereas I pointed out they've been virtually the same since at least 1978. Now you're saying it's not the experience requirements that are easier, it's the checkride itself due to the "attitude"? Aeronautical experience and practical test requirements are two different things of course.

I am genuinely curious, though, so I'll keep asking for details. How exactly was the checkride more difficult in the past? Do you have any old PTS's or their predecessor? I'd be interested in your experience during your Commercial checkride to see how it might differ from today.

I've sent several applicants through Commercial checkrides in the last few years, and they all took it seriously, not a joke. Yes, it is generally thought of as "fun" training, especially as it's usually the next rating past the instrument rating, which is for many people not that "fun". But that doesn't mean they don't take it seriously. Heck, I've enjoyed all of my training for various ratings.

It looks like the pass rate on the Commercial rating (all categories) for 2016 was about 75%. http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/ (Table 19). Interestingly, that's actually trending downward since 2011 when it was 80%. Not sure how to research years before that, that site only goes back to 2011.

 

[dtuuri]

Okay, Now I'm confused. Your previous post implies that the experience requirements have become easy compared to in the past, whereas I pointed out they've been virtually the same since at least 1978. Now you're saying it's not the experience requirements that are easier, it's the checkride itself due to the "attitude"? Aeronautical experience and practical test requirements are two different things of course.

I am genuinely curious, though, so I'll keep asking for details. How exactly was the checkride more difficult in the past? Do you have any old PTS's or their predecessor? I'd be interested in your experience during your Commercial checkride to see how it might differ from today.

I've sent several applicants through Commercial checkrides in the last few years, and they all took it seriously, not a joke. Yes, it is generally thought of as "fun" training, especially as it's usually the next rating past the instrument rating, which is for many people not that "fun". But that doesn't mean they don't take it seriously.

It looks like the pass rate on the Commercial rating (all categories) for 2016 was about 75%. http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/ (Table 19). Interestingly, that's actually trending downward since 2011 when it was 80%. Not sure how to research years before that, that site only goes back to 2011.

Scuze me, maybe I can help. Back in the day you couldn't get an instrument rating until you first had 200 hours AND met the experience requirements of a commercial license, so everybody got their commercial first. And you did maneuvers over and over until you did them right. The Flight Test Guide, which preceded the PTS, required the cross-country planning to be accomplished during the test, not brought from home.

I pine for the old flight Test Guides. What a pity testing has become such a boondoggle, with abstract notions, such as "risk management", "scenario based", "aviation decision making", "single pilot resources management" and a host of "tomato flames" acronyms to pass some bureaucrat's idea of whatever s/he thinks is the making of the "right stuff". Yuk!

dtuuri

 

[mtuomi]

And the OP wants to dumb it down even more...???

What?
No, I want to make it much harder. The XC is useless. Yes, you CAN make them useful, but you don't have to. And I bet many puppy mill schools will just fly there, eat some FBO cookies, and fly back and call it a day.
The requirement should be removed and changed into something much more demanding in my opinion. This was the point of my original post.

 

[Harold Rutila]

That training for a rating or certificate should encompass every possible scenario a pilot will ever face in an eventual flying career is one of the silliest ideas to arise out of the last 10 years.

Learning how to deal with the nuances of working in aviation is something done through experience. You go into the experience with core knowledge provided in training.

Focus on the fundamentals in training. Use those to tackle more complicated missions when the time comes to do that.