Steep turns - visual technique

[JulieFlyGal]

Just wondering when you do steep turns (at 45 and 60 degrees AoB), do you look at actual engine cowling in reference to the horizon? Or do you look at where the edge of the glareshield (dashboard) intersects the horizon?

Reason I ask is that I'm kinda tiny and can't quite see the engine cowling from where I'm seated in the C172 cockpit so I've been looking at the glareshield intersection with the horizon. Is this correct technique or should I be looking at the aircraft's attitude from the engine cowling?

[Beethoven]

If that's working for you then stick to it! Make sure you always sit at the same height in that type of aircraft and I can see no problems. As it stands, if you can't see the cowling then you can't see it...perhaps you should try sitting on some cushions or something as perhaps you need a better view anyway (notwithstanding the steep turns) if you can's see the cowling.

Beet.

[DB6]

Doesn't matter what you are looking at as long as you have a visual reference rather than instruments - they (altimeter and AI/ball) will confirm you have the correct attitude but once that is set you must be looking out. The top of the dashboard is just fine.

[P.Pilcher]

All suggestions above are spot on. I remember, many years ago, even before I earned my instructor's rating a new member joining us with the intention of learning to fly. He was Polish, his English was not brilliant, had long, greasy hair and was mad, mad keen. We nicknamed him "Pete the Pole" or "Pete the Pilot" and he made rapid progress. This was until he got to the circuit - he just couldn't land it! He tried and tried, hour after hour and was literally in tears. Then his instructor had a brainwave and put him on a couple of cushions. He landed it successfully at his first attempt and, three landings later, was on his first solo. It seemed like a mere day or two before he was proudly flashing his brand new PPL!
I would thus deduce that an extra cushion may well enhance the accuracy of your steep turns. I also always advocate a quick glance at the VSI to ensure that the nose is in the correct position as the turn progresses.

P.P.

[Keygrip]

should I be looking at the aircraft's attitude from the engine cowling

We do steep turns in twins, too.

[2close]

Yeah, and I can never make my mind up which engine to relate to the horizon! ;)

[timzsta]

And when asymetric its best to do them in the direction of the live engine....:ok:

[Pugilistic Animus]

In my early training--- which began during the summer---the haze was soooooo thick that I never once had a horizon-EVER--and we were over water-

since we were 'legal VFR' I wasn't violating any thing--as a result ALL of my maneuvers actually on instruments while my CFI --looked out for traffic--and guess what--two things 1. when I did finally have a horizon 60 and 70 degree steep turns were EXTREMELY EASY and my IR proceeded in minimum required time----but my CFI's had alway let me play a bit--

-the moral don't be helpless use your instruments to precisely ascertain the back pressure, attitude, seat -of-pants- and correlate the instrument data with the horizon both primary horizon references --wingtip and ahead---then you'll find it easier---and very intuitive---

sometimes I think of that famous parable from proverbs ---A lazy man says --"there is a lion in the street--I shall be slain"---when I see flight students

PA

[bArt2]

If you can't see the cowling, probably you are seated to low. That was mentioned before regarding references, but more importantly that would create a blind spot in the forward lookout sector. I think you should get a cushion to be seated higher to improve safety.

Bart

[Keygrip]

PA - what aircraft type was that, as a matter of interest?

I'm assuming from your references to "CFI" that this was in the USA.

[Pugilistic Animus]

two types actually---a PA 28-181:ok: and a C--152 aerobat:ok:

Yes, I'm from the USA

PA

[BEagle]

In my early training--- which began during the summer---the haze was soooooo thick that I never once had a horizon-EVER--and we were over water-

That is frankly appalling. How on earth can anyone ever learn proper 'attitude' flying or lookout technique without a reasonable horizon.

The AI should only be used in visual steep turns to confirm that the estimate of the correct AoB is correct - NEVER continuously to maintain the turn. So, LOOkout first, roll to the visual attitude, a squeeze of rudder and an increase in back pressure, plus a little more power as required to maintain the speed. Then a check of the instruments - altimeter and ball plus a quick check of the artificial horizon to confirm that what you thought was 45 deg actually is (correct as necessary), then maintain the attitude visually. Continue the Lookout, Attitude, Instruments sequence until rolling out of the turn to regain straight and level.

A good thing that JulieFlyGal is clearly being taught correctly and not as woefully badly as Pugilistic Animus obviously was. Sadly, I've also come across people 'trained' by a certain school in the US who couldn't fly a steep turn without an artificial horizon and who had no idea how to recover from a spiral descent...... Yet someone in the USA had passed them on their JAR-FCL PPL Skill Tests...:hmm:

[Pugilistic Animus]

A good thing that JulieFlyGal is clearly being taught correctly and not as woefully badly as Pugilistic Animus obviously was.


What was I supposed to do "Woe is me the horizon isn't visible I shall cancel and come back next year"--or maybe I could go 500' above the water--like the other schools no --so that I would have been left without options--in case of an engine failure---the natural horizon is the best easiest--and most intuitive of all instruments--and there was no trouble transitioning to it---when it existed and regarding---steep turns---they should have been call sleep turns :}

planes are easy to me --what can I say---it's the ground I can't quite get:\

PA

[jcbmack]

Beagle,
thank you for your entertaining, but ill informed post.:}

[poteroo]

Ill-informed?.............get out !!

BEagle's 2nd para on how to teach the steep turn is spot on.

It's exactly what the Aussie syllabus teaches, and I haven't heard of many QF aircraft spiralling in recently!!

As to what happens in US flight schools - that's for others to answer.

A mate of mine is C&T on turbines and tells me that there are CPL's converting onto them who simply cannot execute a steep turn without losing it.

My own experience is that a % of our PPL's coming up for a BFR are also unable to make a half decent steep turn left without spiralling it.

I think it's happening as a result of an increase in instructing in procedural matters - with a decrease in skills emphasis. You can only do so much every hour.

happy days,

[abhi88]

I could go 500' above the water--like the other schools no


Actually,I used to do 50ft...:} I believe it improves your handling skillzz....

[BEagle]

jcbmack, a somewhat weak first post, I would venture.

Quite how anyone can learn to fly visual steep turns by cheating and using instruments with the school seemingly tolerating the practice is beyond me. They're only cheating themselves and would certainly fail a PPL Skill Test over her if they couldn't fly an accurate, level, 45 deg steep turn.

[homeguard]

BEagle has it right. Applied flight by sole reference to instruments is exercise 19, in the JAR syllabus. The briefest reference to instruments during the learning of 'Steep turns' is as BEagle has described.

The instructor should be capable of demonstrating the entry, required angle of bank, maintenance and the recovery to S&L flight accurately for the student who, following a handover, then replicates also VISUALLY.

Flight by the sole use of instruments should only follow instrument training. Continueing any exercise in inappropiate conditions is counter productive and wrong! Lack of spatial awareness is the the greatest cause of many accidents. Spatial awareness must be taught thoroughly and you must be able to see features and the horizon for it to be meaningful.

[Keygrip]

I think both sides of this very valid argument are being a bit blinkered.

Beagle is perfectly correct for JAA purposes. The FAA folks are perfectly content for FAA purposes (despite the fact that I disagree with them [my own blinkers]).

I think it comes down to the "reason for the manoeuver"and "what are we trying to achieve".

CAA/JAA suggests the move is a collission avoidance technique and demands it is a VISUAL exercise, flown around the horizon, concentrating on lookout both forwards to the reference and laterally in the direction of the turn. It's why JAA training is happy to roll into the turn whilst making the initial observation - no "clearing turns".

Beagle, not surprisingly, typed it exactly as I was taught to teach it (up to the point of the post turn extra lookout).

The FAA syllabus seems to be more of a "control exrecise" in the manner laid out for them, in writing, in the Practical Test Standards, that says (paraphrasing) lookout turns, 360° of turn at X° AOB, plus or minus 100 feet. That's it.

Indeed, looking up "manoeuvre" in the dictionary gave me a deliberate coordinated movement requiring dexterity and skill.

There's no "real" requirement to do any other - possibly a function of having boxes to tick (check). Though I am at a loss as to what the exercise was trying to achieve. When, in the real world, would anybody conduct a steep turn in IMC? What's the purpose of the exercise?

Same thing with the JAA "Examiners record" - it has mandatory items listed, if you carry out each one of those, "job done". Then, after a month or two of examiners doing just that, messages start to trickle from the CAA saying "you must do more than just the mandatory stuff" (which suggests to me that more is mandatory????). If you write the bloody form, write what you want us to do.

This may all be a historical misinterpretation of the original intent behind the FAA PTS - but the instructors and examiners are sticking rigidly to it and provided they meet the standard listed in the book, then it's "job done". Just what they have achieved is totally beyond me.

The dogged insistence that if you carry out X amount of lookout turns some time before the manoeuvre guarantees that nobody will fly into your area whilst you conduct the turn without looking out again is beyond me - but the PTS standard has been achieved.

Though how you can carry out a clearing turn to see if it is safe to turn is beyond me, too. Especially as so many of the clearing turns are, themselves, flown with much reference to instruments for the same reason - they've not been trained to turn using the horizon as the primary reference.

It's not for me, BEagle or any other to say whether this is right or wrong. It's yet another cultural difference. It is one that I disagree with - but it not my place to try and change, nor to critice so vehemently on PPRuNe.

It's just different. Same as two pilots logging P1 in a single engine aircraft. How can it be? I disagree with it - but them's the rules in the USA.

Every instructor and every school has "used" the regulatory word at some time in order to achieve a tick in the box for whatever they needed. JAA qualifying cross country flights flown along coastlines because the kid couldn't *really* navigate. I've seen it dozens of times when I used to be at Blackpool doing my own training. Not worth a thing other than getting the guy qualified for issue of a PPL. Same deal, really.

FAA - tested by examiners on VFR navigation up to the first reference point (which is often a known feature) then marked as successful. Then into feature crawling when they get their own licence. Acceptable to FAA, not acceptable to JAA - but doesn't make it WRONG - just makes it different. Different country, different rules. Different requirements to achieve.

Again, I personally don't like it - VFR navigation skills are woeful in FAA land - but they are a GPS culture now, so what does it matter? They achieve THEIR aims and goals.

It is, however, exactly what :mad: me off when FAA instructors are allowed to teach JAA students for the issue of a JAA licence - and I am all for the forthcoming EASA proposal of "if you want to teach it, you must hold it yourself". The instructor is all for being paid to teach it. All for having the student to teach and the hours of airline preparation experience in their logbook - but will not teach what they are being paid to teach - which is NOT FAA.

Last line - I recall a JAA standardised FAA instructor departing to conduct touch and go training with a student. Departed, in a Cessna 152, from a controlled airfield at which he could do the circuits, flew away from an airfield some 15 miles away at which he could do the circuits, flew directly overhead another airfield, 25 miles from departure, at which he could do the circuits and then joined the pattern at another airfield 53 miles from departure in order to teach the circuits.

When asked "Why?" - "Because it gets my cross country time up for my FAA ATP!". Now that's not only a thread drift - it's THEFT.

[homeguard]

Keygrip

Although I understand the point that you make I don't see the evidence. You qoute (paraphrasing) form the FAA syllabus but does it say steep turns are to be flown on instruments?

A steep turn can be used for collision avoidance, true. In my experience many pilots all too readily use angles of bank in excess of 30 degrees for many reasons. The ability to undertake a steep turn correctly and therefore safely is an important skill.

They may need to use such a technique while undertaking a forced landing, although descending the rate of descent will need to be managed using the skills learned.

[Keygrip]

What I was trying (badly?) to say is that whilst the PTS does not say the turn is to be flown on instruments - it doesn't say it mustn't be.

Provided they achieve the written word of 360° of turn within 100' they're done. Tick.

You're bringing the conversation back to the real world with your latter comments - which the test standard doesn't. I agree with you, I want to know "Why are we doing this, what are we trying to achieve?" - but the present FAA culture doesn't appear to go along with that.

Tick the boxes. Job done. Move on. Makes it all a farce really.

Same problem with stalll entries, deliberately putting the aircraft into nose high attitudes that the space shuttle would be proud, of in order to make the stall warning horn operate as quickly as possible - but the aircraft is in a never achieved attitude....it's just "means to an end".

Don't get me wrong - I completely agree with the whole step by step process as encouaged by JAA (and indeed encouraged by FAA until instructor rating issue - then ignored) - it's just a cultural difference.

[Whopity]

What I was trying (badly?) to say is that whilst the PTS does not say the turn is to be flown on instruments - it doesn't say it mustn't be.If the privilege of the certificate is to fly VFR then by implication how could it be anything else but Visual?

[Keygrip]

Agreed - so why does JAA include training on instrument flying?

Funny really that they go to all that length to teach the accuracy on instruments, yet freak out if they go anywhere near a cloud.

I've even heard (on the R/T with Miami) more than one pilot cancel IFR and descend because they refused to fly in cloud.

[homeguard]

Keygrip

You primarily teach skills to achieve safety. If safety wasn't an issue then a flying licence would not be required. People did at one time teach themselves. Instrument training (ab-initio) as far as it goes is solely for that purpose, safety!

Some things are considered obvious even when perhaps, some could argue, they are not. PFLs for instance are logically flown by day although not stated but would anybody of a sound mind teach them by night. We can't expect every little detail to be laid out in print otherwise, well ................. just imagine!

Should steep turns in excess of 45 degrees, taught solely on instruments, be required then it would be included as part of Ex 19 (JAR syllabus). It is of course: recovery from unusual attitudes by sole reference to instruments. The skills learnt visually by day in VMC will form a base for later advanced handling techniques by using sole reference to instruments. Building blocks - a technique widely applied in all forms of teaching.

[Keygrip]

Who are you trying to impress? You're preaching to the choir.

I've already said I agree with it all from JAA training - and it's what I do (when I do it).

I'm getting a "Holier than thou" attitude from your posts, I hope I've misjudged them.

Tell you what, I'll guarantee not to post in this thread again, then you can ensure you have the last word - which is what you appear to be trying to do.

[NorthRider]

If you use cushions to get your eyes a couple of cm higher make sure they are nice and firm. You dont whant to sink down when the G kicks in. Even minimal G will push you back down.
If your a/c does not have any good horisontal line like top of the dash doard then you might consider putting a piece of tape on the windshield. Once a piece of bubble gum did the trick... Some adhisives on tapes may damage the winwshield, so be careful.

[jcbmack]

Beagle,
as already noted it does depend on both the regulations being followed and the individual student along with the conditions the training is under. For some flight students it is advisable to become comfortable using visuals immediately and either using instruments is either advantageous as you stated or perhaps not the best of ideas yet anyways. How Pugilistic Animus describes his training was just fine under the circumstances and it has not hindered his performance in any way nor has it discredited the advice he gives here on PRUNE. In the air, ideal conditions do not always exist.:=

Visuals are also easier than learning instruments anyways, and there are so many circumstances where visuals cannot be relied upon. The FAA regulations are just fine and have not failed US pilots yet.;)

Now if a student is nervous, ill experienced on instruments, needs visuals specifically due to lack of experience then by all means scheduling may need to be made for such training. Both are important to skilled and safe flight practices. What I mean by ill informed is you jumped the gun on PA's training as the "wrong way." :E

[BEagle]

Nope, I emphatically disagree with the notion of people being taught to fly steep turns by reference to instruments alone.

When first learning to fly steep turns, students MUST fly in conditions where there is a well-defined horizon and by reference to which they learn the correct aircraft attitude.

I'm beginning to understand more and more now why people 'taught' at some PPL-farms in the US clearly do not understand the basics of attitude flying.

PA's training was clearly flawed and was probably driven more by the alleged school's financial programme than for the student's benefit.

[Pugilistic Animus]

-the moral don't be helpless use your instruments to precisely ascertain the back pressure, attitude, seat -of-pants- and correlate the instrument data with the horizon both primary horizon references --wingtip and ahead---then you'll find it easier---and very intuitive---



BEagel

I believe we were in heated agreement


in my case my instructor was actually very conservative and such conditions would not have been tolerated with many other students except that on my first flight ever I did the preflight, start up, coms, TO and LDG,... and the next day slow flight power on/power off stalls/ steep turns and turns around a point ---gasp and another landing with 15 knot crosswinds gasps gasp...none of my early training sessions went over 1 and a 1/2 hours and I soloed at 10hr all around busy airspace---and futhermore frequently while wainting outside of class delta airspace I would engange in steep turns for fun so MY learning was not comprimised---my instructor adapted to ME so he was a great instructor--and I have much gratitude thaqt he allowed me such freedom--yes it was about money ...MY money and I paid to fly---- not have my behind wiped by a nanny any other way would have seen the CFI sacked--quick fast as I have no patience

[BEagle]

If you have no patience, you shouldn't be flying.

As for thinking that if you've got the money you can dictate how you will be taught - if you tried that with any reputable training organisation they'd probably tell you to find somewhere else....'quick fast'.

I wouldn't care whether you're a millionaire or a pauper - you would be taught correctly and I, not you, would assess your progress!

[goldcup]

Wow Pugilistic Animus you must be the ace of the base! Flying since the summer and already you have instructional technique nailed. A good instructor is someone who teaches quickly!?

I would suggest that, for all BEagle's faults, he knows how to teach people to fly aircraft, both big and small. He was trained to do so by a pretty reputable organisation who pretty much wrote the book on how to instruct.

So, in order to avoid becoming a smoking hole in the ground, may I suggest you:

a. show a bit of humility
b. respect your betters
c. be open to advice- the day you stop learning is the day you crash
d. realise that actually, you know very little when it comes to flying

[homeguard]

Keygrip

I found time today to look at the FAA, 'Airplane Handbook'. The handbook goes into detail describing how the pilot should use the outside references while undertaking a turn in excess of 45 degrees. It suggest only the briefest reference to the attitude indicator to confirm the angle of bank - which has already been argued.

If some instructors/examiners in the states are teaching otherwise, flying the manouvre solely or primarily on instruments - they are doing so without the blessing of the FAA!

[Pugilistic Animus]

That is not what theFAA handbook says!!!!!

read my profile and realize I'm NOT an amateur
and No I don't know everything, but I'm a good stick and rudder ---now, how about some inverted spins now:E

[Lurking123]

As a relatively new instructor (JAA mould) I can absolutely see why instruments at an early stage may be viewed at the work of the devil. Too many students flying with some form of haphazard instrument scan, no understanding of attitude flying, staring at the ASI on final, flying by trim, adding back pressure as the horizon rises up the screen in a steep turn etc. Frankly I think that a lot are rushed through exercises 4, 6, 7 & 8 with the inevitable outcome that the don't know how to 'fly' an aircraft. Come to think of it, I have probably been fighting aircraft for over 20 years and only now do I understand the importance of the basics.

Oh, and for the half-dozen times I've instructed steep turns, I have never let my student use the instruments; a appropriately folded half mil gets shoved in front and, every so often, they are allowed a glance to confirm their 'picture'.

PS. BBB and LAI

[Pugilistic Animus]

The biggest reason students do poorly in any maneuver is because the FI did not explain it properly in ground school---you learn to fly on the ground and practice in the air!!!!!
FFS planes are easy; aviation is tough:ugh:

perhaps one should really read the Airplane flying Handbook

and Wolfgangs langwiesce's "Stick and Rudder"

BTW the biggest problem with many maneuvers in the air is not being proficient in straight and level flight:suspect:--but I'm a bad and incompeteant instructor/pilot/student/teacher-- so what the:mad: do I know

Lester:E

[Lurking123]

Do you have to be so animated?

PS. I've seen a number of 'good stick and rudder' pilots do some very silly and terminal things. :uhoh:

[BEagle]

PS. I've seen a number of 'good stick and rudder' pilots do some very silly and terminal things.

They probably thought that they were 'a good stick and rudder'..... Or perhaps boasted that they were. Right up until the final meeting between aeroplane and ground.

[Pugilistic Animus]

If you've ever read anything I've written you would probably see that I believe that

" the mountains, oceans and storms ---don't know your name--they know no one's name, not you not ME,... nadie!"

avaiation is fair it kills everybody from new students to 20,000 hr pilots:=


Do you have to be so animated?




YES!
:}:\:{:zzz::=:yuk::*:E:D:rolleyes:

[Lurking123]

In my relatively limited experience aviation isn't fair. It is very good at seeking out those with chinks in their psycological armour.

I wish you well.

PS. I soloed in 6hrs 55 minutes. That doesn't make me a sky god. :)

[Pugilistic Animus]

I soloed in 6hrs 55 minutes.


I wanted to finish all my commercial manuever's so I could spend more time alone---and also I took passengers [not solo-of course]:eek:


I'm not a sky god Re-read my post in this threa [reading is important]

read some of my other post ---then criticize me---I still have not spiraled into the ground--I don't feel I'm an ace or a sky god, or better than anyone else---but I had to defend myself against this ignorant tirade

Flying is fun --spent lots of time laughing and smiling---I just understood my plane and let it teach me

[jcbmack]

Beagle may be good at training pilots and have a wealth of knowledge and skill, (as indicated in some of his many posts) but in this case he is making the mistakes of an amateur... making broad and drastic assumptions. This can be fatal in flying and should not be a common practice here either, or so it would seem.:}

Sometimes our own egos get the better of us or we rely upon our own experiences neglecting what the regulations actually say OR assume we are right without the benefit of other wise pilots as well.:ugh:

[jcbmack]

Keygrip, your posts are not only fair and balanced, but level and accurate.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Thanks for your the support JCBMack:)

PA:ouch:

[BEagle]

jcbmack, whilst I only started flying 10 years before you were born and didn't starting instructing until 20 years ago, in almost 10000 hours of flying I have at least developed the capacity to detect dangerous and ridiculous comment.

This sums up the FAA position, I hope:

I found time today to look at the FAA, 'Airplane Handbook'. The handbook goes into detail describing how the pilot should use the outside references while undertaking a turn in excess of 45 degrees. It suggest only the briefest reference to the attitude indicator to confirm the angle of bank - which has already been argued.

If some instructors/examiners in the states are teaching otherwise, flying the manouevre solely or primarily on instruments - they are doing so without the blessing of the FAA!

That seems fine to me. But attempting to teach students who 'lack patience' or 'are paying the money' in unsuitable conditions is irresponsible at best, negligent and fraudulent at worst - you cannot convince me that teaching 45 deg banked turns by reference to instruments merely because it was hazy and the student was impatient is in any way acceptable.

Some years ago, I found out that some of my instructors were introducing students to instrument flying before they'd even gone solo. This I promptly banned; the emphasis must be on learning how to fly by visual reference first. Only when that has been fully assimilated should instrument flying be introduced, so our current syllabus makes the specific statement that basic instrument flying shall NOT be taught until the student has passed his/her first progress check, demonstrating the ability to depart and return to the visual circuit from the local area and fly all types of circuit to an acceptable standard.

The reason why instructors were focusing on IF? So that their free 'demonstration ILS' at the student's expense would help them build their airline wannabe hours.

[jcbmack]

Beagle I never called into question your age. I also never stated you lacked experience. I actually have read many of your posts and I stated as much and stated you must have experience training pilots. The problem you seem to be having in this particular thread is not fully grasping FAA regulations and that some students are those that test out of ground school, find a good match with an instructor equal in stature to your obviously glowing qualifications and demonstrate knowledge of both visual and instruments. Now, I have been reading PPRUNE for two years before posting. I have read all of Old Smoky's posts, Johm Tullamarine's, many of Mutt's, Guppy's and all of Pugilistic Animus's. He is a highly regarded and respected poster here by the absolute best professionals here at PPRUNE, moderators included.:{ I am new here at PPRUNE, posting that is. :suspect: While I am only 30 years of age, my experience is quite extensive and I have also personally witnessed rare, but reasonable exceptions to your rigid claims, Beagle. Some pilots early on demonstrate unusual skills and knowlegde and when it is sufficiently demonstrated training can at times be expedited. Tell me the FAA regulations regarding ground school, show me verbatim from the regulations why instruments under such conditions are strictly prohibited not why you think so. 30 or 60 any of us can end up crashing. :eek:

I think the general rule applies, but as we all know from our training and actual real word experiences there are very few 100% absolutes period. One only needs to read the discussions in tech log, like aborting after V1 discussions or one engine out flight procedures on a Boeing 747; off topic yes, but illustrative I would venture. There are some pilots type rated on several airplanes, passed all visual and instument tests and are still terrible pilots.

The law keeps us safe except when it doesn't...:\ Instrument rating makes it safer, until they start lying (need for calibration) and if the pilot is not aware and skilled the plane can go downhill...:( Visuals can keep us guided to a point of reference, until that reference is not there to guide us... :*

I love planes. I love flying. I respect the law. I do not think all students (or instructurs) are equal. All the training in the world cannot make you feel and anticipate the airplane, though, chance favors a preapred mind and certainly training hones and sharpens skills. There are unique bonds formed between certain instructors and students, it is not a one size fits all.

Having bought books that PA has recommended and having seen his dialogue with moderators and gentlemen even older than Beagle I can say I have benifitted from his knowldge and expertise. I can also say I read your posts Beagle and have also benefitted greatly.:) This thread, however, right here has not shown you in your best light. Perhaps you should rethink what you are saying and modify it a little? The sky humbles us all!:D

[jcbmack]

Beagle,
that point on those instructors is a valid one, not saying it is not.:cool: I am not suggesting that all new students should rely on instruments first.

[Pull what]

Gentlemen, an interesting argument.

Just a word about Beagle. Beagle is ex RAF and before you consider that you need to consider the standards of the Royal Air Force which is without doubt the most competent and experienced air force in the world.

When a man is trained in the RAF he tends to maintain the standards he was trained to, even when he goes to a civilian school. It is a great shock for anyone who has experienced RAF training to be introduced to some of the low standard, low discipline training that exists in the UK and the US.

You also need to consider that the syllabus that most of the world trains to, was developed by the RAF.

The one difference is that the RAF constantly updates its syllabus, it is always cutting edge, the present civillian syllabus is based on wartime training, with a bit of Ron Cambell waving the FAA flag thrown in.

RAF pilots always have a problem with commercial viability, In the RAF they can wait for a day when the horizon is better they dont have to pay the bills and sometimes fail to understand that aircraft only earn money in the air!

What Beagle says, from the point of view of acceptable standards, is completely correct, PPL steep turns should be taught with a visual horizon using instruments as a reference to check for accuracy.

Beagle is also correct to say that they should not be taught before first solo, however no drastic wrong is comitted if an instructor does some of the exercises that are numbered after 12 & 13 before first solo, in fact sometimes a complete break from the circuit can do a struggling student a power of good. What is wrong is when there are constant departures from the syllabus and they occur regularly with the student receiving little benifit, there should be a purpose to each exercise. a purpose that the student can appreciate and learn from.

I note in this discussion that several posts had to be made before anyone dicussed why students should be trained in making an advanced turn, which highlights instructional weakness. EG. always discuss with a student why each exercise is being flown, THE AIM!

I want my student to be able to make an avoiding turn, understand spiral descent and be able to recover from it, be able to recognise the approach to the stall and recover and to be able to understand minmium height and the need for lookout etc. When you discuss the purpose comprehensively it soon becomes obvious why you need to start with a visula horizon

Somebody said, 'why would anyone want to do a steep turn in IMC? This is a classic misunderstanding of flying instruction and instruction in general. Training is designed to exercise limits which in practice may never be reached.
Read the Invicta Vanguard accident at Basle where the captain made several turns at 60 deg bank angle in cloud to establish on the inbound course, when the first officer took control no turn was above 30 deg bank angle (it was later found out that the captain had failed his initial IR 9 times).

[homeguard]

Whatever the arguments no syllabus, that I know of, advocates learning steep turns by sole reference to the instruments. The FAA certainly does not.

Training, as BEagle suggests and I advocated in my previous post, at its best is undertaken as a series of building blocks. Each block gives the student the knowledge and the skill to undertake the next one.

A number of the exercises post 12 & 13 can add constructively to the pre 12&13 exercises. Steep turns are one of those. Instrument appreciation and interpretation is also one of those, of course, but only to a limit. That is to confirm to the pilot precisely that they have indeed achieved the flight aim.

Its all very well individuals argueing that: "I turned out alright so.....". It is hardly an arguement that can be validated except in the opinion of the individual who states it is so. Certainly in my experience of over 20 years and 7000 + hours of instructing, it is very rare for a student introduced to the full applied application of the instruments too early not to have problems with navigation and spatial awareness. We do not have specific exercises in spatial awareness in any syllabus anywhere in the world as far as I know. It is assumed, therefore, that we teach spacial awareness embodied within all the visual exercises.

Anyway, no one in their right mind wants to be flying solely by instruments, surely. It is boring and tireing. The instruments simulate flight attitudes but without the ability to benefit from more instant information such as: where are we going, where are we and are we going to hit anybody or anything.

Looking out in vmc gives us immediate answers. That doesn't mean to say that the required skills come naturally. They need to be taught. There is a skill to looking at the world from above and making sense of it. Orientation also needs to be taught. The skills are different from those needed when standing on the ground. Too much flying by sole reference to the instruments too early confuses and expects too much of a student pilot and undermines the importance of spatial awareness and visual scanning.

[Pugilistic Animus]

The FAA certainly does not


PA--- Certainly does NOT!!!!:*

I don't want to go into a long personal story
I suck at typing and don't want to get into a JB-style 'hamster wheel' here

so, I'll get technical:8

Steep and maximum performance turns -just as I explained to my instructor LOOOOONG ago:ooh:

from a prior post---


There are 3 possible limiting factors which may limit or define max theoretical turning performance, they are:


1. The airfoil's ability to produce maximum lift---

Assuming a steady state process where L=W, since the maximum weight ever to be carried by a wing is the weight that it carries at the stall Vs.

Lmax = Clmax *QS=1/2rhoVsqrd*S--- And ---

W[at stall] =Clmax 1/2rhoVssqrd*S ---therefore---

g max or n [g=n] max = Lmax/Wmax...divide eq. 1, by 2 and all cancels except the 'V' terms, therefore nmax= [V/Vs]sqrd...so you now have now the max load factor possible: a stall at 2 vs will pull 4m*g or 4 W or 4 'g'---

a stall at 4*Vs creates load factors of 16g etc, etc...



2. The operating strength limitations: this is the upper limit of the load factors that will not hurt the airframe: Va again

From above pt.1--- you can derive that Va = Vs*sqrt n


3. Thrust or power limits ---

This defines the ability to maintain altitude.


As far as stall speed in a turn remember that n = L/W =1/Cos phi;
phi = bank angle--

--- stall speed increase with bank angle is derived by recording that---
--- stall speed increases with W or g can be derived from Vs2/Vs1=sqrtW2/W1, so you may write that Vs[phi] =Vs*sqrt[n]

Lastly, as a hint to understand the web site---- remember that y =sin Theta, and X =cos theta, and sin /cos =Tan and Tan= opposite side length/ adjacent, or y/x


and for interest:

Rate of turn [deg/sec] =1091Tan [phi] / V[tas]

and

increase in stall speed Vs with flaps is given, by

Vsf = sqrt*CLmax [clean] / Clmax [w/flaps]

BTW: turn radius at stall speed is infinite as you implied already--impossible!

but I'm a Stupid muppet

BTW it behhoves ex-RAF and other pilots to learn to READ as NO ONE has UNDERSTOOD a word I've written stop putting words in my mouth---do you not teach your students to read!!!!!?
and pay attemtion TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY said read carefully--Don't correct my spellin and grammer:yuk:
Anyways I'm fed up--I'll stick to tech log and such---I wont post here again I don't care:zzz:

A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!


Are you all sure that's the reason other pilots don't want to talk to you all?:*

PA-- Professor of Aeronautics--:=

[Lurking123]

I spent the day perusing some FAA stuff; I must admit I warmed to the manner in which information is presented. In particular I looked at the Airplane Handbook (apologies to fellow English speakers :bored:) and Chapter 9 discusses, amongst other things, steep turns. Funnily enough, it more or less reflects the issues we also find in 'JAA land'. To quote (I have paraphrased):

During the turn, the pilot should not stare at any one object. To maintain altitude, as well as orientation, requires an awareness of the relative position of the nose, the horizon, the wings, and the amount of bank. The pilot who references the aircraft’s turn by watching only the nose will have difficulty holding altitude constant; on the other hand, the pilot who
watches the nose, the horizon, and the wings can usually hold altitude within a few feet.

Common errors in the performance of steep turns are:
• Failure to adequately clear the area.
• Excessive pitch change during entry or recovery.
• Attempts to start recovery prematurely.
• Failure to stop the turn on a precise heading.
• Excessive rudder during recovery, resulting in skidding.
• Inadequate power management.
• Inadequate airspeed control.
• Poor coordination.
• Gaining altitude in right turns and/or losing altitude in left turns.
• Failure to maintain constant bank angle.
• Disorientation.
• Attempting to perform the maneuver by instrument reference rather than visual reference.
• Failure to scan for other traffic during the maneuver.


PA, I'm sorry but I have attempted to 'READ' what you have written and am slightly flummoxed. You seem to agree with the fundamentals involved (90:10 rule for lookout vs. instruments), at the same time you appear to promote the concept of being more liberal in how a student is taught/learns. Am I right in this assessment or have I missed your point completely?

[VFE]

It has always been my understanding under JAR that the primary objective of advanced turns is to teach advanced control co-ordination, not rapid entries (collision avoidance), and this latter aspect should be left until the student has become competant at co-ordinating the control movements including the use of power and maintaining the airspeed and attitude.

Although instrument reference should be limited in the early stages, the significance of how to utilise the attitude indicator for pitch and bank reference, and the use of the VSI as a trend instrument in relation to maintenance of altitude should eventually be covered.

The importance of a good lookout can never be over stressed of course.

If the attitude indicator is introduced too early during the initial stage of practice the student may attempt precision flight earlier than his capabilities will allow.

When quicker entries are practised the need to use more positive rudder application during the initial commencement of the rolling action is often forgotten.

Worth mentioning amongst all this talk of collision avoidance. It ain't the initial objective!

VFE.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Lurking123 ---I wrote a veeeery long post--and I accidently deleted it:{


I'll get back to your question- but I need a cigarette now:\...you asked very good and pertinent question that deserves to be answered properly:ok:

Stupid computers:mad:

PA

[Lurking123]

Cancer sticks - very bad. I'm going to the pub for a pint (or two) and a curry. I look forward to a little bedtime reading. :)

[BEagle]

It is of some importance that the aerodynamics of a sustained level turn are understood by the Instructor and that he/she can explain the relationship between angle of bank and load factor to the student.

But it is far more important that students correctly understand how to fly the turn.

Incidentally, 'Rate of turn =1091Tan [phi] / V' is meaningless without specifying your units. Because Rate of Turn = g tan(AoB) / (TAS).

But then again, I only have a lowly BSc(Eng) in aeronautical engineering and who am I to query a professor..:ooh:

[Pugilistic Animus]

BEagle
deg/sec:O--I shoulda known---thanks!

But it is far more important that students correctly understand how to fly the turn.



I agree again 100%--that's why I like them read to 'stick and rudder--and the Airplane Flying handbook--breaks'em of the ground habits

I'm too frustrated after my accidental deletion-- that I can't re-write that post today--SUN or MON--maybe sooner---sorry

re Cancer sticks

Stupid PA:uhoh:

[BEagle]

And for TAS? - Knots? Quaint old statute miles per hour? Metres per minute? Furlongs per fortnight? Leagues per weekend?

Assuming that g = 32.2 ft/s/s, I calculate it to be 1317.3 miles/hr/s or 1144.7 knot/s. Whence cometh 1091?

[Pull what]

But then again, I only have a lowly BSc(Eng) in aeronautical engineering and who am I to query a professorGuys you are out classed, sorry.

Best to leave this thread before Beagle dies laughing.

[BEagle]

Chaps, chapesses and chap...others,

NO-ONE 'outclasses' anyone else in aviation. If they think they do, one day they'll probably find that they don't. And very probably, fatally.

[Whopity]

To answer the original question:

Buy a cushion!

[Pull what]

To answer the original question:

Pick a mark on the aircraft which provides a datum for you to reference the visual horizon, if need be buy a cushion.

Pick an instructor who understands the aim of Advanced Turning.

Beware of advice given on forums by self appointed experts

[BHenderson]

To answer the original question:

Make sure to look straight ahead when rolling into the turn so as to see the nose begin to drop.

[AvEnthusiast]

Well, I think it's quite difficult to execute proper steep turns with instrument. The other day I had my steep turns lesson. And I was executing it properly when looking on the cowling but quite bad when looking on the instruments. well still it's depends on individuals which way they can do it better, but remeber if you are flying VFR then your attention should be 90% outside and 10% on insturments.
And please can someone tell me how do you pick up the reference point from dashboard I can not do it. I'm tall and always look at cowling and my insturctor always talks about the dashboard as reference point.

[jcbmack]

Quote: "Chaps, chapesses and chap...others,

NO-ONE 'outclasses' anyone else in aviation. If they think they do, one day they'll probably find that they don't. And very probably, fatally."

Absolutely 100% agreed! :ok:

[rjtjrt]

Poor young JulieFlyGal. She must be sitting there gobsmacked.
John

[Jumbo Driver]

To answer the original question:

Buy a cushion!

Aahh ... that would be the famed Whopity Cushion :ok:

... or something like that ...

JD
;)

[SASless]

BEagle,

You have led us to believe the Almighty queries you?

Are you elevating Professors beyond that even?

[BEagle]

No, it's just that 1091 knot/sec seems an unusual value for 'g'. According to my sums, using standard values for the mass of the Earth, the mean radius of the Earth and the Univeral Gravitational Constant, 1091 knot/sec equates to 9.354 m/s/s which would be the value of 'g' at roughly 150 km above the Earth's surface....:confused:

[Pull what]

Just wondering when you do steep turns (at 45 and 60 degrees AoB), do you look at actual engine cowling in reference to the horizon? Or do you look at where the edge of the glareshield (dashboard) intersects the horizon?

Reason I ask is that I'm kinda tiny and can't quite see the engine cowling from where I'm seated in the C172 cockpit so I've been looking at the glareshield intersection with the horizon. Is this correct technique or should I be looking at the aircraft's attitude from the engine cowling?

Just to remind you of the original thread , nothing there about demonstrating your own importance or knowledge of aerodynamics not required on a PPL

[jcbmack]

Quote:
"Just to remind you of the original thread , nothing there about demonstrating your own importance or knowledge of aerodynamics not required on a PPL."

That is true, but the answers were given, now this thread has evolved into a more technical discussion among experts of varying degree with real world experiences. If we come to insights and answers then this thread is very useful to us all.

On another note, there are numerous working professionals here at PRRUNE with years of experience and wisdom to impart. Beagle and Pugilistic Animus are two in this case with extensive educations and practical experience, in this thread. I am a working professional who benefits from the wisdom of such people. It does get heated in PPRUNE sometimes, but the outcomes are usually productive. This is not your average blog where amteurs say: "I love plane, how do they fly." Well, they do, but not in the sense the layperson, enthusiast does...:D

[belowradar]

Interesting thread - just to put my pennies worth in I learned in Florida along the coastline and it was often hazy but my instructor told me to stick with steep turns despite the haze as it would pay dividends in the long term. Now we are talking CAVOK but no distinct horizon (fact of life ).

Ref: Gleim's Fundamental's Of Instructing P114 (prepares you for FAA CFI)

INTEGRATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTION
Integrated flight instruction is flight instruction during which students are taught to perform flight manouvers both by outside visual reference and by reference to flight instruments. For this type of instruction to be fully effective , the use of instrument references should begin the first time each new manouver is introduced. No distinction in the pilots operation of the flight controls is permitted, regardless of wether outside references or instrument indications are used for the performance of the manouver. When this training technique is used , instruction in the control of the aircraft by outside visual references is integrated with instruction in the use of flight instrument indications for the same operations.

When teaching IMC students it is obvious to me which ones have been trained using this method.

:ok:

[jcbmack]

Quote:
"Well, I think it's quite difficult to execute proper steep turns with instrument. The other day I had my steep turns lesson. And I was executing it properly when looking on the cowling but quite bad when looking on the instruments. well still it's depends on individuals which way they can do it better, but remeber if you are flying VFR then your attention should be 90% outside and 10% on insturments.
And please can someone tell me how do you pick up the reference point from dashboard I can not do it. I'm tall and always look at cowling and my insturctor always talks about the dashboard as reference point."
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4701602) http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4701602&noquote=1)


AvEnthusiast, it is a matter of preference, but if you have the nose on the front horizon you can use that, not just the dashboard. You may also use the wingtips on the side horizon. :) Your instructor is not wrong, he prefers the dashboard.

Also, yes generally it is ALWAYS wise to look outside flying VFR. Even PA's initial posts indicate visual references. For myself, it depends on the student, sometimes it is good to have them scare themselves, so as long as the situation is safe and controlled by the instructor.

[jcbmack]

As long as the students learn! :8

[belowradar]

I would suggest that, for all BEagle's faults, he knows how to teach people to fly aircraft, both big and small. He was trained to do so by a pretty reputable organisation who pretty much wrote the book on how to instruct

Having read many of Beagles post over the years he does appear to fall into the trap of being a bit of a know it all. Great that he is ex RAF but even RAF instructors don't know it all. He definitely appears to have a fairly obvious prejudice towards American flight training. I remember a great moment when poor old Beags had to admit that he was wrong regarding carb heat on PA28's (not in the POH for landing checklist). This is a guy who prides himself on knowing everything. Also comes across as a bit of an authoritarian who doesn't think much about mere mortal FI'S.

Now I know this is bound to arouse passions but honestly it is merely an observation of posts and comments which are very evident in this thread. I don't know Beagle and have no axe to grind but I don't like know it all's who don't !:ok:

[Pull what]

I would suggest that, for all BEagle's faults, he knows how to teach people to fly aircraft, both big and small. He was trained to do so by a pretty reputable organisation who pretty much wrote the book on how to instruct

Having read many of Beagles post over the years he does appear to fall into the trap of being a bit of a know it all. Great that he is ex RAF but even RAF instructors don't know it all. He definitely appears to have a fairly obvious prejudice towards American flight training. I remember a great moment when poor old Beags had to admit that he was wrong regarding carb heat on PA28's (not in the POH for landing checklist). This is a guy who prides himself on knowing everything. Also comes across as a bit of an authoritarian who doesn't think much about mere mortal FI'S.

Have to agree with the above.
Many people are good instructors but the best charachters are not dying to tell you of how much experience they have and on what, their excellence can be see from the way they teach. not from an over inflated ego. Humilty is also a valuable, desirable quality in aviation.

[BEagle]

I have no prejudice against US training properly conducted.

But I have considerable prejudice towards whoever allegedly 'taught' a couple of Florida school graduates I flew with.... From different schools, incidentally.

I'm also prejudiced against those who revel in Schadenfreude.

Anyway, this thread is in danger of drifting into 'He said, she said' slanging match. I consider that the original question was answered with sufficient detail and that both JAA and FAA instructional techniques (assuming they are correctly applied) reinforce this. That's all that matters.

[Lurking123]

My PA28 checklist (derived from the Aircraft Flight Manual) most certainly has carb heat as a pre-landing check. It's a bit of a pity that the aircraft manufacturer didn't notice he had installed a fuel injected engine. :ugh:

Anyway, I'm more interested in getting my head around instructional ethos and techniques.

[homeguard]

What on earth are Pull What and below radar attempting to achieve by the above comments defeats me but it sound like sour grapes resulting from an in-ability to conclusively argue their corner.

I doubt whether many even know who BEagle is nor do I understand how having a longtime discovery and studied knowledge of flying goes to make one a know-it-all.

When someone asks for help then, if i can, I will help, so far as I have the ability and knowledge but based on sound ground. I do not contribute unless I first have fully considered what I have say and have a good basis for what I say. When proven wrong or found ignorant I need to go back to the drawing table and I enjoy doing so. Knowledge brings with it one truth: the more that you know the more you realise what you do not!

I have been accused of patronising and now BEagle of being a know-it-all, during this thread alone. All such awful dreary resentment achieves is to drive enthusiastic, intelligent and knowlegable people away from debate. You don't have to agree but if not have good reason to argue otherwise.

Another option is to open the mind and learn, however hard it may be to come to terms with such a thought. The Ego dosn't get satisfied on pprune, know one knows who you are.

I just hope that those mis-directed into teaching 'steep turns' as if it was an instrument training detail now cease to do so.

[jcbmack]

Beagle has immense experience and knowledge, but he should have known better than to judge without first checking his references. The US and Britian are not the same. The hazy conditions do apply. PA is a professor of aeronautics and skilled pilot. Just see his posts with mad flight scientist, a certification engineer. Beagle has far my flight hours than most people in this thread and certainly far more than me! What I take issue with is the assumption he made that are incorrect and he does not seem able to admit to it and move on. That is dangerous in my humble estimation. Beagle is correct as far as the initial post in this thread, it has been asnwerd and I answered the second post question on the dashboard. We all need to learn more, gain experience and hopefully we can learn from each other! :ok:

[belowradar]

HOMEGUARD

I am hoping to achieve the following

1 - Demonstrate that the FAA promote a method of flight training called INTEGRATED flight training

2 - Demonstrate that Beagle's posts are quite at odds with that training philosophy

Nothing else - I don't wish to cause offence but do wish to point out this widespread and well proven method of flight training. I also hope that it may allow those with a very fixed view of flight training to better understand these alternative methods.

Logic and fact not opinion.

[Pugilistic Animus]

What an aptly chosen title actually:}

And I was was just trying to help encourage the young aviator to become a"Strawberry Bitch" and like Sully to say MY AIRPLANE DAMN IT!!! :ok::}:\:ouch:


because as we also learned from Captain Sully---You can't go to the birds for the answers:E

RE: '1090' using a dimensional analysis the original equation was multiplied by some constant multiplier K that internally converted the dimensions---- in order allow the input to be expressed directly in KTAS and the out put in Deg/sec,...this is generally the most useful way to do so

'cuz I've learned that sometimes the answer is just 8.202:}

however my neglect in directly specifying the correct input unit [KTAS ] seems to have led to a confusing statement ---I guess ,...I seemed to have made a slight error:8

I'm still not finished with this topic my girlfriend has PA on his leash right now:p :}and I wont have time to finish my post correctly;)

but wanted to snip away some lose ends


Papa Alpha

[Pugilistic Animus]

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/338827-effect-weight-cruise-level-performance.html#post4338608

Perhaps JulieFlyGirl ---did not mind the little aerodynamics digression;)

[Lurking123]

PA, I'm genuinely interested but please write in a fashion where some of the less experienced/qualified/intelligent can understand.

PS. I've read about Integrated Flight training and it seems to reflect, to a degree, what happens in reality. However, doesn't the process place more emphasis on the instructor ensuring the correct balance of skills is achieved and maintained? How do you standardise such an approach?

[jcbmack]

PA,
you always were vague and superficial...:} Why are your explanations so abysmal?:);):O:D:{:ugh:

[Pugilistic Animus]

Forgive me if I happen to get a little philosophical,..or Wax poetic,...or seem an ass,...

but the ground has been to mean to me and aviation is the ONE thing that I feel has been 100% fair to me

I mean---- as they say ...There's plenty of money in aviation,...All mine's there:}

PA hates the ground!---the stupid mupetry that occurs thereon,...propagated by stupid muppetty ground people---thereon and all the idiocy associated there with and therefore ---I remain three-phase-triple disconnected therefrom:*...lest I flash over into an arc and overload:\

so for me aviation is an important an emotional field


I believe in a practical sense that a student should actually learn as much as they can,..and that aeronautical knowledge is NOT sacred and therefore encorage them to be the very best they can,...PPL..CFI ATP or a {Stuedant}:} whatever. One need not be an engineer, or a mathematician to understand the subject....I give stick and rudder as reading to all pilots as I've seen many folks fight against their plane that's because they are not air-broken completely but the air can be understood sufficiently with very simple explanations Langwiecsche's "stick and rudder" accomplishes this task very very well and I can't do a better job than Wolfgang...for me it was the suffering upon the ground that sent me to the air ---you see I was Already ground broken:(

it is actually impossible to develop to a 'one size fits all' curriculum'.., every individual has to come to their own understanding of the topic as intelligence is actually best define --at all levels---as, the ability to adapt to ones environment

Flight instructors,.. entrusted with the LIFE LONG SAFETY of their students and it is incumbent upon them to learn to adapt to the individual EVERYONE is different and learns differently and have different limitations,... so yes some times I am liberal with particular students
and if a student want to try something a little more advanced.,I let'em try..., most of them scare themselves. learn an important lesson,..seek more aeronautical knowledge,...and most importantly Learn that they have limitations and if practical overcome them,..Like when I first discovered just how :mad:ing useless the rudder is in the Pitts in an inverted -accelerated spin,...and ONLY Beggs-Meuller technique offers any hope of recovery!!!:eek::\:uhoh:

Airfolks,

Remember in kindergarten when all pilots have had Misses Tooey,...so at PpRuNe,...We have ALL have visited a forum at one time and just Talked lots of Hooey:}


PAPA ALPHA

[perhaps I shall return];)

[AvEnthusiast]

So let's put aside all these nasty discussions and talk more about technicalities and tips related to topic which the thread has been posted for.
Ok as we all know that when losing altitude in steep turns then we have to reduce bank and if we gain altitude we have to increase bank. So when we reduce bank do we really ease the pressure a little bit on the ailerons and rudder on the side of turn or no we use the opposite aileron and rudder for decreasing bank? or if we only use the opposite aileron a little bit and no changes in rudder?

[Pugilistic Animus]

And as many experienced pilot's will advocate.

A pilot should learn to use/ and understand all available equipment on board from the magnetic compass to zero reader Flight director with a VOR CDI with the fixed card ADF on MW right BelArgUSA:ok: all the way on through to the ASI, VSI, IVSI, DG,Altimeter, HSI, TC, T&B, CPPDLC, ACARS, TAWS, TCAS II [with ch.7] HTS, EGWPS, RAIM, GPS, HUD ADIRU, INS, LORAN C, ILS, LOC, WAAS, FANS, LPV, SV, APFDS, DUATS, MLS, LOC-BC , FLIR, XMWX, STORMSCOPE, STRIKEFINDER,..and Composite moisture stability charts:8

you all get the point:}

PA

[Pugilistic Animus]

AV enthusiast,... CAAPS,...clearing turns entry Alt, AirSpeed Premaneuver Checklist [see flight handbook] Straight and level roll in to about 30 deg aob, step on the ball, increase power to maintain lift--back pressure.,,, look at the VSI for help if needed and keep your nose on the horizon,..just as my stupid, dangerous, criminally negligent, incompetent, immoral, corrupt, greedy SOB of a CFI briefed me:ok:
oh don't forget TRIM,.. makes it hand off,..of course, roll out:hmm:.,, the stick maybe a bit heavy GRRRR,...one never forgets 2g's;)
Spiral Dive recovery:

Always first roll out level on ailerons then smoothly pull out of the dive,... recover laterally then longitudinally or you pull a tighter spiral,..for a little dive, more back pressure ---i.e FIX IT!!!

[hugh flung_dung]

I've been reading this thread with interest (and agree with BEagle and Homeguard for ab initio training) but some of the responses are getting a little too weird for my liking.
One can never know whether all on t'interweb is what it seems, and I'm starting to have doubts in this case. Confidence might be restored by a return to conventional English and the use of a few less icons (and by removing the suggestion to trim in a turn).

HFD

[Pull what]

I doubt whether many even know who BEagle is nor do I understand how having a longtime discovery and studied knowledge of flying goes to make one a know-it-all.

Oh I think we do!

[Pugilistic Animus]

Confidence might be restored by a return to conventional English and the use of a few less icons (and by removing the suggestion to trim in a turn).you don't have to trim,...there are several reasons not to,...but a little trim[pilot's preference-actually], helps to prevent over-controlling the plane

what's wrong with my ingles

OK next time I'll post in Spanish,...maybe more folks would get my point :ugh:


now one last point!!

You gotta wash'em out in ground school:E. to forge a pilot,..you gotta BREAK THEM UP!!! BREAK THEM UP!!!!:}

if you don't like the style of my post... then,..place me on your ignore list...I don't care
because you have two choices,... Agree with me or be wrong:ooh:

Lester:E


notice, I wrote 'up' not down

[Pugilistic Animus]

BEagle,

I also do an exercise where in order to build confidence
I ask the student "do you think that you could still do that turn if I covered all the flight instruments?..., check later with altimeter;)

No hard feelings, I'm sorry that those two US flight schools, left a bad impression with you:(,... but see we are not too bad here in the US
I can see you care and "Just like to see things done properly":D

PA

[Lurking123]

pA, over here in JAA land we also do the same exercise, on the very first steep turn flight.

[jcbmack]

It is not all sweet stories of Sully. Read, learn, train and pay attention! The one thing you don not know can put you under the ground.:zzz:

[jcbmack]

Look I am not debating over ice on the wing or problems with the rubber boot, but what I hate is when they get on television and explain how lift is generated all wrong and mishandle discussion of stalls. Air flow over and under the wings are important, but this guy got on MSNBC and said that in aviation only the air flow over the wing is what matters and not below at all. Terrible error. I can understand having to simplify matters, but the media and apparently the NTSB does not handle aviation news well at all.