PPL Syllabus - Why no Emergency Turns?
Thread Starter
PPL Syllabus - Why no Emergency Turns?
Steep Turns are part of the UK PPL Syllabus and yet Emergency Turns (ie for avoiding aircraft which are in close proximity) are not.
Given the density of the airspace in which we often operate now, I think that Emergency Turns should be taught. After all we teach the student how to Go-Around if he/she cannot safely complete an approach and/or landing but we do not teach them what to do if they lookout and see an aircraft which they might collide with in the next few seconds if they do not take decisive avoiding action.
I would be interested to hear other views
Given the density of the airspace in which we often operate now, I think that Emergency Turns should be taught. After all we teach the student how to Go-Around if he/she cannot safely complete an approach and/or landing but we do not teach them what to do if they lookout and see an aircraft which they might collide with in the next few seconds if they do not take decisive avoiding action.
I would be interested to hear other views
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do teach emergency turns/max rate turns (and a lot else that isn't specifically in the syllabus.) but I do feel that it is a bit of an omission that it isn't in specifically as part of the steep turn excercise.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valid point but, like turnbacks, I could see more people coming to grief practising (flicking, overbanking at low level etc.) than would ever be saved by doing an emergency turn. In ~3700 hours of flying I've never had to do one, but I've gone around a few times 
.
.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons you don't teach them at low level!
I like to teach max rate turns because it allows you to explore the a/c handling characteristics in relative security, i.e with one of us onboard.
All a/c handle differently; some flick in, others flick out and some do very little, but isn't it better to allow someone to experience the full ability of the machine before they are likely to ever need to do it for real?
Before someone leaves my hands, I want them to feel totally comfortable with the machine, not unsure of what it can actually do.
This does mean pushing the limits occasionally, but hey isn't that why we're paid so much?......
A bit like spinning I suppose.
I like to teach max rate turns because it allows you to explore the a/c handling characteristics in relative security, i.e with one of us onboard.
All a/c handle differently; some flick in, others flick out and some do very little, but isn't it better to allow someone to experience the full ability of the machine before they are likely to ever need to do it for real?
Before someone leaves my hands, I want them to feel totally comfortable with the machine, not unsure of what it can actually do.
This does mean pushing the limits occasionally, but hey isn't that why we're paid so much?......
A bit like spinning I suppose.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: east midlands
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards teaching the avoiding technique and the steep turn et all... when I learnt to fly I remember having a good 30 mins flying time with my instructor calling out "avoiding action - contact left/right - avoid" on a couple of trips just so that I could explore the envelope of the aircraft and be ready for any situation. The aircraft was a PA38 so uncontrolled roll was a certainty!
Anyway as an instructor, I teach avoiding action and yes it is not specifically in the syllabus but a competent instructor who knows of the dangers can easily work it into Ex15.
Anyway as an instructor, I teach avoiding action and yes it is not specifically in the syllabus but a competent instructor who knows of the dangers can easily work it into Ex15.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the replies.
DB6, surely teaching ETs would mean pilots would be less likely to "flick, overbank" etc and, if it's taught properly, they would not be practising same at "low level"?
I don't really want to get into the merits or not of turnbacks although I do have my own views on such a manoeuvre!
DB6, surely teaching ETs would mean pilots would be less likely to "flick, overbank" etc and, if it's taught properly, they would not be practising same at "low level"?
I don't really want to get into the merits or not of turnbacks although I do have my own views on such a manoeuvre!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first trained on microlights I was told that there were 7 types of climb:
turning climb
cruise climb
max angle climb
max rate climb
noise abatement climb
emergency climb
and one that for the life of me I can't remember!
The emergency climb was nothing more than a swift pull back on the stick to give a switchback effect - quite fun really - but it was taught.
turning climb
cruise climb
max angle climb
max rate climb
noise abatement climb
emergency climb
and one that for the life of me I can't remember!
The emergency climb was nothing more than a swift pull back on the stick to give a switchback effect - quite fun really - but it was taught.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A true max rate avoiding action turn would most likely exceed 60 deg bank and therefore cannot be done normal cat. It could be done if the aircraft is utility cat (check W&B), but given the risk of inadvertantly exceediing 90 deg bank the exercise is perhaps better left to an aerobatic cat aircraft. Perhps the reason why it is not routinely taught at PPL level. A good exercise on a aero's or advanced handling course though IMHO.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southampton
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency Turns
My philosophy on steep turns was that is was to improve handling and coordination skills, however I would also demonstrate and teach it as an avoiding manouvre!
Of course if you you go on one of those wonderful instructor seminars, one particular instructor will start going on about the EFATO emergency turn back, while possible its also quite a good way for a less expericed pilot to kill himself.
(Bob, hope your keeping well, lost your e-mail!)
Of course if you you go on one of those wonderful instructor seminars, one particular instructor will start going on about the EFATO emergency turn back, while possible its also quite a good way for a less expericed pilot to kill himself.
(Bob, hope your keeping well, lost your e-mail!)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A true max rate avoiding action turn would most likely exceed 60 deg bank and therefore cannot be done normal cat.
I have never seen anything in the rules that you cannot exceed 60 degrees in normal cat.
An aeroplane in the normal category is limited to non-aerobatic manoeuvres, which include "Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees."
The utility category is for limited aerobatic operation and permitted manoeuvres include "Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar manoeuvres, in which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90 degrees."
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It comes from the certification standard CS23 (or FAR
23), quote:
"CS 23.3 Aeroplane categories
(a) The normal category is limited to nonaerobatic
operations. Non-aerobatic operations
include –
(1) Any manoeuvre incident to normal
flying;
(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(3) Lazy eights, chandelles and steep turns
or similar manoeuvres, in which the angle of bank
is not more than 60°.
(b) The utility category is limited to any of the
operations covered under sub-paragraph (a); plus –
(1) Spins (if approved for the particular
type of aeroplane); and
(2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep
turns, or similar manoeuvres in which the angle of
bank is more than 60° but not more than 90°."
A true max rate turn involves flying to the edge of the manouever envelope, and could therefore risk ecxeeding the load factor limit if entered at a speed above Va. Perhaps another reason for leaving it to aerobatic cat aeroplanes which have a g meter fitted and a higher limit load factor. The military teach them in UAS/EFTS but they have the luxury of using aerobatic aeroplanes for ab initio training.
Of course there is a difference between the maximum instantaneous turn rate when entered aggresivly from cruising speed as an emergency avoiding manoeuver, and the maximum sustainable level turn rate once the speed has decayed. The latter depends on engine power and for a low powered aircraft the maximum sustainable bank angle may be less than 60 deg anyway. For a Cessna 172 at sea level with max power this bank angle turns out to be 56 deg and speed 85 kts, loading 1.8g. In this case it would be possible to demonstrate a maximum sustainable turn while remaining within the normal cat limits.
23), quote:
"CS 23.3 Aeroplane categories
(a) The normal category is limited to nonaerobatic
operations. Non-aerobatic operations
include –
(1) Any manoeuvre incident to normal
flying;
(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(3) Lazy eights, chandelles and steep turns
or similar manoeuvres, in which the angle of bank
is not more than 60°.
(b) The utility category is limited to any of the
operations covered under sub-paragraph (a); plus –
(1) Spins (if approved for the particular
type of aeroplane); and
(2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep
turns, or similar manoeuvres in which the angle of
bank is more than 60° but not more than 90°."
A true max rate turn involves flying to the edge of the manouever envelope, and could therefore risk ecxeeding the load factor limit if entered at a speed above Va. Perhaps another reason for leaving it to aerobatic cat aeroplanes which have a g meter fitted and a higher limit load factor. The military teach them in UAS/EFTS but they have the luxury of using aerobatic aeroplanes for ab initio training.
Of course there is a difference between the maximum instantaneous turn rate when entered aggresivly from cruising speed as an emergency avoiding manoeuver, and the maximum sustainable level turn rate once the speed has decayed. The latter depends on engine power and for a low powered aircraft the maximum sustainable bank angle may be less than 60 deg anyway. For a Cessna 172 at sea level with max power this bank angle turns out to be 56 deg and speed 85 kts, loading 1.8g. In this case it would be possible to demonstrate a maximum sustainable turn while remaining within the normal cat limits.
Last edited by Rivet gun; 21st Mar 2006 at 21:22.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fireflybob, leaving aside the limitations question, the thing about a lot of stuff in the PPL syllabus is that it will not be practised at all once the pilot has their licence. PFLs, steep turns, stalls etc. Most weekend PPLs will not practice them until they have to i.e. once every two years. It's understandable, it costs a lot of money. Since a lot of the real close shaves I have heard about are in the circuit it follows that there is a risk that an out of practice pilot will bugger up an emergency turn and pile in rather than just do a normal steep turn. I do believe that one of the reasons the Firefly (T3A) was withdrawn from USAF service was a chap doing a run and break and flicking in, and he was presumably much more current than your average PPL. I teach it during an aeros course but it would just alarm your average PPL, or make them barf, or both.
Thread Starter
If you are going to teach/practice ETs then it goes without saying that you observe anu a/c limitations - indeed this should be part of the brief - surely good information for any student?!
In reality if you HAD to do an ET then it may be a choice between a mid air collision and the RISK of overstress etc - I know which I would prefer!
I think it is unfair to let pilots loose without giving them some form of escape route. A pukka steep turn is not the same as an ET. Practising ETs shows the students that it may be necessary to fly the aicraft decisively to avoid a collision and given the traffic density and mix of traffic in the FIR I think it should be taught now. I wonder if any of the collisions that have occured between military a/c and civil MIGHT have been avoided if the civil pilots had had this training?
In reality if you HAD to do an ET then it may be a choice between a mid air collision and the RISK of overstress etc - I know which I would prefer!
I think it is unfair to let pilots loose without giving them some form of escape route. A pukka steep turn is not the same as an ET. Practising ETs shows the students that it may be necessary to fly the aicraft decisively to avoid a collision and given the traffic density and mix of traffic in the FIR I think it should be taught now. I wonder if any of the collisions that have occured between military a/c and civil MIGHT have been avoided if the civil pilots had had this training?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maximum sustainable level turn rate once the speed has decayed... depends on engine power and for a low powered aircraft the maximum sustainable bank angle may be less than 60 deg anyway. For a Cessna 172 at sea level with max power this bank angle turns out to be 56 deg and speed 85 kts, loading 1.8g.
FFF
-----------------
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyingForFun
Really????
FFF
-----------------
FFF
-----------------
Perhaps theoretically would be a better adjective.. I must be a bit of a sad case to be into this kind of thing.
The numbers come from a textbook on light aircraft performance by a chap called John Lowry. For a better explanation you might ask Genghis on the Flight Testing forum who I am sure understands this stuff much better than I do.
Originally Posted by DB6
Valid point but, like turnbacks, I could see more people coming to grief practising (flicking, overbanking at low level etc.) than would ever be saved by doing an emergency turn. In ~3700 hours of flying I've never had to do one, but I've gone around a few times .
.Another was some years ago when I was flying non-radio in a microlight and a PA28 for reasons best known to himself (he didn't seem to explain himself very well to the Airprox Board) decided to suddenly change course whilst we were passing on reciprocal headings to fly straight through me. A course of action that offended me somewhat at the time. If anybody has access to the Airprox reports, it was 30 August 1998.
G
Originally Posted by Rivet gun
Well, OK maybe not really.
Perhaps theoretically would be a better adjective.. I must be a bit of a sad case to be into this kind of thing.
The numbers come from a textbook on light aircraft performance by a chap called John Lowry. For a better explanation you might ask Genghis on the Flight Testing forum who I am sure understands this stuff much better than I do.
Perhaps theoretically would be a better adjective.. I must be a bit of a sad case to be into this kind of thing.
The numbers come from a textbook on light aircraft performance by a chap called John Lowry. For a better explanation you might ask Genghis on the Flight Testing forum who I am sure understands this stuff much better than I do.
The first is that dictated by the amount of lift that your wing can generate. This creates an instantaneous lift when you bank then pull. For a few seconds, you can pull quite a lot of g - which might just get you out of the mire.
However, for sustained level turning performance you need to keep putting back the energy otherwise either you lose height, or you lose speed (or often both). This is why you increase power in a moderate to steep turn. The steeper the turn, the more power you need; but eventually you just don't have enough.
(Partly) because of this, I've seen the advice in several places that if a light (e.g. Cessna), comes head to head with a fast-heavy (e.g. a Tornado) whilst both should continue to turn right as usual, for increased safety the light should also (if possible) descend (using potential energy to sustain the turn safely) whilst the fast-heavy should climb since they have the thrust to perform such a sustained manoeuvre.
A bit off-topic but this is a huge issue in fighter design. The aeroplane with the greatest sustained turning performance, at the engagement altitude, will almost certainly win any prolonged dogfight since it can outturn, and thus win a turning fight with an opponent.
G
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 50
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steep Turns are part of the UK PPL Syllabus and yet Emergency Turns (ie for avoiding aircraft which are in close proximity) are not.
However while I demonstrate a max-rate turn (except in the Robin 400 - the wings tend to fall off!) I tell the students not to do them, as it is too easy to get into an incipient spin, at least in a PA28. I teach them to 60 degrees, and to get there as quickly as possible and turn 90 degrees. The slight improvement at max rate is not worth the risk of a spin, IMHO. Since I taught on PA28s so couldn't give them spin experience, I was not happy to have them deliberately pulling towards the stall in a steep bank!