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
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.