New Commercial ACS

Im taking my comm ride next week. I assume that because the effective date is June 12th, that I will still be examined on the PTS standards, correct?
 
Im taking my comm ride next week. I assume that because the effective date is June 12th, that I will still be examined on the PTS standards, correct?

I did my instrument checkride the airspace designations changes were announced but before the actual change. (from control zone to class D, etc...) I was expected to know and I was asked about both.
 
About to start on my commercial. If I had the gumption I could probably get it done before then, but how much difference can it really be?
 
Doing a quick scan of the document it looks like the same standards that the PTS follows for the practical just presented a different way. Am I correct or am I missing major changes?

Considering that this will not even be "published" or effective until after my test I am going to assume that I shouldn't worry too much about it.
 
ACS from what I understand is more "scenario" based. Instead of going up and doing A, B and C I think it's supposed to be more like: I wanna grab a burger from this place 100 miles away. Get me there.

I don't know though, I got my PPL, instrument and Commercial before ACS came out.
 
Im taking my comm ride next week. I assume that because the effective date is June 12th, that I will still be examined on the PTS standards, correct?

You should be good with the old PTS for next week. It seems like my PPL and IR have all been right before the change from PTS to ACS, probably not going to make the cut off for the commercial. I haven't read up on it, but from what I hear, it is just more of the ADM stuff like DECIDE model and all that nonsense. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
 
If your about to do the checkride, make sure you review the Area of Operation on slow flight and stalls - New Commercial ACS states -
Establish and maintain an airspeed at which any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or reduction in power, would result in a stall warning (e.g., aircraft buffet, stall horn, etc.).
The most recent Commercial standard for Slow Flight indicated "establish an airspeed “approximately 5–10 knots above the 1G stall speed, at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without activating a stall warning.”

Guess that standard didn't work out so well for the FAA. It wasn't around very long.
 
So the ASA Commercial Oral Exam Guide edition 8, which seems to be the latest, should that still be good for studying for the oral? Should anything have changed with that with the new ACS?
 
Also watch out for the definition of "stalls"...

Graphic from Rod Machado who's not happy about this, again... same silliness with the Private PTS to ACS transition. And I can't really say that I disagree with him.

82a33260d7990c4be4c2900d5dfcb44a.jpg


To be fair to Rod and convey exactly what he has to say about it, and not interject my words/thoughts, and since the graphic is taken from his Facebook post, I'll include his text from that post below...

"Greetings Folks:
The FAA just released its "Commercial Pilot Airman Certification Standards." One thing jumped out at me and it might interest you. Keep in mind that the FAA has expressed concern over commercial pilots not having/maintaining sufficient stick and rudder skills. OK, I agree (and props to the FAA). But look at the evolution of the power-off stall testing requirement in the PTS/ACS from 2002 to 2017. It seems quite clear to me that the FAA and the good folks on the ACS committee (yes, they own this, too) don't feel that a commercial pilot applicant should demonstrate his/her ability to actually "stall" an airplane to obtain a commercial pilot certificate.

Of course, the folks supporting this idea will say, "Well, flight instructors can teach actual stalls during training." The moment someone says that to you, they've lost the argument. Yes, some CFIs will teach actual stalls, but the majority won't. Most CFIs will simply teach what is required for the exam. Not to understand this is idea betrays a deep, deep misunderstanding of human nature.

Please, someone proffer a convincing argument at how the FAA's and ACS committee's change in testing standards doesn't dumb down aviation skills. I am a sucker for a logical argument and will assume that there is simply a galactic-sized hole in my understanding of this issue. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Once again, I'm not anti-FAA or anti-ACS committee. I'm simply anti-bad ideas."
 
The purpose isn't (or shouldn't be) to teach how to stall an airplane. It's to teach how to recognize an impending stall and recover properly.
 
The purpose isn't (or shouldn't be) to teach how to stall an airplane. It's to teach how to recognize an impending stall and recover properly.

Understood. But do you see Rod's point that given the leeway there WILL BE instructors who "teach to the test" meaning there WILL BE Commercial applicants who've come up through Private (and maybe Instrument) who WILL NOT KNOW how to stall an aircraft and recover?

I get the whole "Don't let a horn go off without acknowledging it." thing. I was arguing that for gear warnings after my CFI taught me that in the early 2000s and he was blasted for it by some of his peers and I was blasted for it here... and lo' and behold, FAA has even come around on that one to the point where they recognize the way we were training people to ignore alerts and horns (for both gear and stalls) was setting a bad precedent. But...

Part of the standard is what Rod says. Skills demonstration. Human nature will lead some down the primrose path to believe there is no need to teach stalls.

It'll take a while, but in the current speed-hiring environment, how many "time-builder-only CFI-leaves to a 'real job' and new one takes his/her place" cycles, along with us old guys retiring, will we need to see this basic skill diminish? Three? Four?

You really want a green FO who's literally never been required to demonstrate a stall for anyone? Keep in mind what Rod's saying. He's not saying instructors who know what they're doing won't require it... but technically they don't have to. And now there's no requirement to demo it for an examiner, either. No legal requirement to demonstrate a stall... all the way to the Commercial ticket. Hmmm.
 
Understood. But do you see Rod's point that given the leeway there WILL BE instructors who "teach to the test" meaning there WILL BE Commercial applicants who've come up through Private (and maybe Instrument) who WILL NOT KNOW how to stall an aircraft and recover?

I get the whole "Don't let a horn go off without acknowledging it." thing. I was arguing that for gear warnings after my CFI taught me that in the early 2000s and he was blasted for it by some of his peers and I was blasted for it here... and lo' and behold, FAA has even come around on that one to the point where they recognize the way we were training people to ignore alerts and horns (for both gear and stalls) was setting a bad precedent. But...

Part of the standard is what Rod says. Skills demonstration. Human nature will lead some down the primrose path to believe there is no need to teach stalls.

It'll take a while, but in the current speed-hiring environment, how many "time-builder-only CFI-leaves to a 'real job' and new one takes his/her place" cycles, along with us old guys retiring, will we need to see this basic skill diminish? Three? Four?

You really want a green FO who's literally never been required to demonstrate a stall for anyone? Keep in mind what Rod's saying. He's not saying instructors who know what they're doing won't require it... but technically they don't have to. And now there's no requirement to demo it for an examiner, either. No legal requirement to demonstrate a stall... all the way to the Commercial ticket. Hmmm.
I do think full stall demos is an appropriate requirement for training, but really the goal should be to avoid getting to full stall. I think for checkride purposes that is the better option.
 
The older Airplane Flying Handbook distinguishes between a stall warning and a stall indication. The horn is warning but it does not indicate a stall. Seems this simple fact is completely lost on the current crop of bureaucrats at the FAA.
 
I just did my Commercial knowledge test (103 questions so 3 test q's, passed with 88%) - no more wingtip bearing change calculations but a ton of HSI stuff. Hated it. Some questions also had obvious errors - apparently you need a "clearance" to enter D airspace...
 
Also watch out for the definition of "stalls"...

Graphic from Rod Machado who's not happy about this, again... same silliness with the Private PTS to ACS transition. And I can't really say that I disagree with him.

82a33260d7990c4be4c2900d5dfcb44a.jpg


To be fair to Rod and convey exactly what he has to say about it, and not interject my words/thoughts, and since the graphic is taken from his Facebook post, I'll include his text from that post below...

"Greetings Folks:
The FAA just released its "Commercial Pilot Airman Certification Standards." One thing jumped out at me and it might interest you. Keep in mind that the FAA has expressed concern over commercial pilots not having/maintaining sufficient stick and rudder skills. OK, I agree (and props to the FAA). But look at the evolution of the power-off stall testing requirement in the PTS/ACS from 2002 to 2017. It seems quite clear to me that the FAA and the good folks on the ACS committee (yes, they own this, too) don't feel that a commercial pilot applicant should demonstrate his/her ability to actually "stall" an airplane to obtain a commercial pilot certificate.

Of course, the folks supporting this idea will say, "Well, flight instructors can teach actual stalls during training." The moment someone says that to you, they've lost the argument. Yes, some CFIs will teach actual stalls, but the majority won't. Most CFIs will simply teach what is required for the exam. Not to understand this is idea betrays a deep, deep misunderstanding of human nature.

Please, someone proffer a convincing argument at how the FAA's and ACS committee's change in testing standards doesn't dumb down aviation skills. I am a sucker for a logical argument and will assume that there is simply a galactic-sized hole in my understanding of this issue. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Once again, I'm not anti-FAA or anti-ACS committee. I'm simply anti-bad ideas."

How does one recover from the "indication of an impending stall?" Accelerate from slow flight??? I think there is a difference between just being able to pass a checkride and actually being skilled in the techniques you are being tested on. If a pilot actually encounters a stall in the real world, it would be to his/her advantage to be skilled in recovering from the real thing, not just and "indication of a real thing". For a private maybe is one thing that could sort of be argued, but come on, for a CPL, I really do believe you should be able to actually stall an airplane and then recover. It's really not that hard nor is it difficult to practice and demonstrate safely. This just seems foolish to me. If my instructor had just prepared me to pass a checkride (both PPL and IR) rather than training me to actually become proficient in what it takes to become a pilot and later an instrument pilot, I would have been ready for the rides LONG before I actually went up.

I just did my Commercial knowledge test (103 questions so 3 test q's, passed with 88%) - no more wingtip bearing change calculations but a ton of HSI stuff. Hated it. Some questions also had obvious errors - apparently you need a "clearance" to enter D airspace...

yyyyyyup, the same one got me! ha ha
 
How does one recover from the "indication of an impending stall?" Accelerate from slow flight??? I think there is a difference between just being able to pass a checkride and actually being skilled in the techniques you are being tested on. If a pilot actually encounters a stall in the real world, it would be to his/her advantage to be skilled in recovering from the real thing, not just and "indication of a real thing". For a private maybe is one thing that could sort of be argued, but come on, for a CPL, I really do believe you should be able to actually stall an airplane and then recover. It's really not that hard nor is it difficult to practice and demonstrate safely. This just seems foolish to me. If my instructor had just prepared me to pass a checkride (both PPL and IR) rather than training me to actually become proficient in what it takes to become a pilot and later an instrument pilot, I would have been ready for the rides LONG before I actually went up.



yyyyyyup, the same one got me! ha ha
You are missing the whole point imo.
It's about recognizing the impendending stall, not going any further, and flying out of said situation.
Avoid that and you will never need the other.
 
You are missing the whole point imo.
It's about recognizing the impendending stall, not going any further, and flying out of said situation.
Avoid that and you will never need the other.

I don't disagree with you, recognizing it is important to keeping yourself out of the situation in the first place and you won't need the other. However, God forbid you do get into that situation, doesn't hurt to have the experience their either. Maybe a better solution would be first recognize the impending stall, let the examiner know that you recognized it, and continue to the stall and recovery portion. Just my two cents. Plus I think it's a good exercise in aircraft control even if you never need it. You are a professional pilot right? ATC ever give you "Hold west at those two high tension power poles, maintain pivotal altitude, left turns"??
 
I find it interesting that the FAA says there are several potential indications of an impending stall, but only one is worth reacting to.
 
ATC ever give you "Hold west at those two high tension power poles, maintain pivotal altitude, left turns"??
Ive spent quite a few hours doing pivotal altitude turns on a point for photographers...an extremely useful skill.
 
You are missing the whole point imo.
It's about recognizing the impendending stall, not going any further, and flying out of said situation.
Avoid that and you will never need the other.

Not sure I'd bet my life on that. You can certainly get an accelerated stall with little or no warning.

Hell, two airline crews ignored stall warnings and one even fought the stick pusher, all the way to the ground.

Do you find their "stall avoidance training" adequate? Or even basic knowledge of pitch plus power?

Additionally do you think those being trained to fly airplanes *without* the ability to see these things in a simulator are going to have enough experience with FAA removing the requirement, in those aircraft and roles in aviation where no simulators are used nor required?

Brass tax: You going to put yourself in the back seat or your family on board a commercial flight with a pilot who's trained to a "no stalls allowed" standard, single pilot?

I can tell you what, I won't be sitting in back or sending a family member up with a pilot trained to only stall avoidance.

I get it in Transport category stuff where it's also simulated in simulators, and even then two multiple person crews killed everyone on board two commercial aircraft with clear stall warning indications.

The kids flying the small stuff don't have anything but the PTS, or now, the ACS to hang their experience hat on. And it's low. We all know this. Low timers have more incidents and accidents that high timers. And you want the standard they're measured by, lowered?

Not smart.
 
......You going to put yourself in the back seat or your family on board a commercial flight with a pilot who's trained to a "no stalls allowed" standard, single pilot?

I can tell you what, I won't be sitting in back or sending a family member up with a pilot trained to only stall avoidance....

Honestly, my thoughts exactly. So much in everyday life has been "watered down" in my opinion. Maybe we actually hold to some standards higher then, "well, they kinda sorta tired real hard!"
 
Not sure I'd bet my life on that. You can certainly get an accelerated stall with little or no warning.

Hell, two airline crews ignored stall warnings and one even fought the stick pusher, all the way to the ground.

Do you find their "stall avoidance training" adequate? Or even basic knowledge of pitch plus power?

Additionally do you think those being trained to fly airplanes *without* the ability to see these things in a simulator are going to have enough experience with FAA removing the requirement, in those aircraft and roles in aviation where no simulators are used nor required?

Brass tax: You going to put yourself in the back seat or your family on board a commercial flight with a pilot who's trained to a "no stalls allowed" standard, single pilot?

I can tell you what, I won't be sitting in back or sending a family member up with a pilot trained to only stall avoidance.

I get it in Transport category stuff where it's also simulated in simulators, and even then two multiple person crews killed everyone on board two commercial aircraft with clear stall warning indications.

The kids flying the small stuff don't have anything but the PTS, or now, the ACS to hang their experience hat on. And it's low. We all know this. Low timers have more incidents and accidents that high timers. And you want the standard they're measured by, lowered?

Not smart.
You sort of prived my point with the crew fighting the pusher. Perhaps if they were trained & tested on th imenent stall that may have never happened.

Not sure what you mean by not being able to see these things in a sim.
I'm not a fan of logging time in a sim that's a "GA" sim. If it's not a level D sim, throw it out for that type of training.

Most airlines never train to full stalls.
 
I have the same feeling about spin training. Just curious how many private pilots that have gotten their certificate in the last five years have never recovered from a spin? Has an instructor demonstrated at 3,000 agl to you what happens if you are in a 30 degree bank and you stall with the ball on the high side (simulating dragging it in and turn base to final uncoordinated)? Impresses the **** out of students that don't use the pedals and fly turns uncoordinated.
 
Last edited:
Ive spent quite a few hours doing pivotal altitude turns on a point for photographers...an extremely useful skill.

Eights on pylons are fun.
It's a performance maneuver that you fly pretty low, and you need a pretty good hand to fly them accurately. I enjoy doing them.

I get most maneuvers for CPL. Chandelles for "canyon turns", steep spirals for engine failures over a hole in a cloud, pylons for photography.
...now, if someone could give me a real-world example where you'll need a lazy eight...
 
You sort of prived my point with the crew fighting the pusher. Perhaps if they were trained & tested on th imenent stall that may have never happened.

Not sure what you mean by not being able to see these things in a sim.
I'm not a fan of logging time in a sim that's a "GA" sim. If it's not a level D sim, throw it out for that type of training.

Most airlines never train to full stalls.

I think we're in agreement. Just looking at it from different places.

The problem is, folks getting a Private or Commercial rating (pre-ATP), long before they have enough hours to apply to fly anything that will have a Level D sim available for it, need to learn something somewhere. They're going to learn in piston aircraft with crappy stall warning systems.

If the standard is stall avoidance, great, but they've not then seen what a real stall looks like nor seen one where the warning system itself fails. I've seen a warning system fail. These aren't Transport category aircraft with multiple AoAs cross referenced by an air data computer for accuracy or faults. There's a crappy microswitch and a flap of metal on the underside of the wing out there and it's not all that accurate in icing, say... or just is so cheap it's as likely to close the buzzer circuit as not. Not to mention the piezo buzzers are going on 40+ years old. Mine on the 182 sounds like someone is attempting to strangle a cat. They're not reliable systems.

Neither of the transcripts of the two most recent fatals with lots of people on board seems to indicate that either crew understood they were even in stalls, even though their aircraft clearly told them they were. And neither spent much time in the "imminent stall" flight regime. They were flying and then stalling. They didn't get much time to notice anything "imminent". The Colgan crew probably had the best shot at that, and the transcript shows about 120 seconds of airspeed decay at equal power and pitch as I recall. Both crews aircraft hid the problem from them with the autopilot/automation for quite a while, too.

But "imminent stall" or even "recover at first indication" training, didn't seem to work out too well for them. Or their passengers. And they had top notch gear.

Some of the 40-50 year old stuff out here the low time commercial guys are pounding around in, has none of that, and if they're not shown how to recover from stalls, they're going to end up in one eventually anyway, since the warning systems can and do fail.

Icing and things that change the airfoil behavior aside, I have my suspicions about some of the low level pipeline patrol accidents. Bad or no stall warning devices, low level maneuvering, never seen or recovered a spin...

I just don't think it's smart for FAA to keep making the standard lower. There's nothing wrong with demanding training to never ignore a stall indication with the ability to still purposefully stall the airplane. Ignoring the horn is bad. Same problem gets created in retracts... people learn to ignore the horn at altitude and then bring that bad behavior down into the traffic pattern with them. But one can train to acknowledge the horn and stage out loud that a reason to continue exists to mentally handle that the proper way, vs just silently ignoring it on the way to a stall.

I think one of the mental problems FAA is dealing with is that they're not requiring new aircraft to spin in testing. And if they don't, then they don't want people getting anywhere near the stall regime, not knowing if they'll maintain coordinated flight. It's a Catch 22 they've created for themselves.

DPEs don't want to die (or have to pull the chute) in a Cirrus with a pilot who doesn't have his feet connected even slightly to his brain and leaves their feet flat on the floor 95% of the time. Can't blame them, really. The candidates have no stick and rudder skill. Never had a chance to develop it.
 
I think we're in agreement. Just looking at it from different places.

The problem is, folks getting a Private or Commercial rating (pre-ATP), long before they have enough hours to apply to fly anything that will have a Level D sim available for it, need to learn something somewhere. They're going to learn in piston aircraft with crappy stall warning systems.

If the standard is stall avoidance, great, but they've not then seen what a real stall looks like nor seen one where the warning system itself fails. I've seen a warning system fail. These aren't Transport category aircraft with multiple AoAs cross referenced by an air data computer for accuracy or faults. There's a crappy microswitch and a flap of metal on the underside of the wing out there and it's not all that accurate in icing, say... or just is so cheap it's as likely to close the buzzer circuit as not. Not to mention the piezo buzzers are going on 40+ years old. Mine on the 182 sounds like someone is attempting to strangle a cat. They're not reliable systems.

Neither of the transcripts of the two most recent fatals with lots of people on board seems to indicate that either crew understood they were even in stalls, even though their aircraft clearly told them they were. And neither spent much time in the "imminent stall" flight regime. They were flying and then stalling. They didn't get much time to notice anything "imminent". The Colgan crew probably had the best shot at that, and the transcript shows about 120 seconds of airspeed decay at equal power and pitch as I recall. Both crews aircraft hid the problem from them with the autopilot/automation for quite a while, too.

But "imminent stall" or even "recover at first indication" training, didn't seem to work out too well for them. Or their passengers. And they had top notch gear.

Some of the 40-50 year old stuff out here the low time commercial guys are pounding around in, has none of that, and if they're not shown how to recover from stalls, they're going to end up in one eventually anyway, since the warning systems can and do fail.

Icing and things that change the airfoil behavior aside, I have my suspicions about some of the low level pipeline patrol accidents. Bad or no stall warning devices, low level maneuvering, never seen or recovered a spin...

I just don't think it's smart for FAA to keep making the standard lower. There's nothing wrong with demanding training to never ignore a stall indication with the ability to still purposefully stall the airplane. Ignoring the horn is bad. Same problem gets created in retracts... people learn to ignore the horn at altitude and then bring that bad behavior down into the traffic pattern with them. But one can train to acknowledge the horn and stage out loud that a reason to continue exists to mentally handle that the proper way, vs just silently ignoring it on the way to a stall.

I think one of the mental problems FAA is dealing with is that they're not requiring new aircraft to spin in testing. And if they don't, then they don't want people getting anywhere near the stall regime, not knowing if they'll maintain coordinated flight. It's a Catch 22 they've created for themselves.

DPEs don't want to die (or have to pull the chute) in a Cirrus with a pilot who doesn't have his feet connected even slightly to his brain and leaves their feet flat on the floor 95% of the time. Can't blame them, really. The candidates have no stick and rudder skill. Never had a chance to develop it.
Definitely agree! I think some aerobatics should be required for a commercial rating. I would prefer my charter pilot know how to get an airplane off its back if the worst happened.
 
Dumbed down or not, the ACS isn't going to be any more effective than spin training for CFIs or drag demos for multi pilots.

Those that are comfortable and proficient get it, those that aren't just pass the test.
 
Back
Top