Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
60 degrees of bank in the pattern? Kick ass, I'll try that tomorrow between LGA and IAD.
Bank Angle In The Circuit (Pattern)
- Thread starter Nark
- Start date
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Get out of this thread, you're not a real pilot.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
As usual, if you are flying an airliner like a fighter, or a light GA single like an airliner, you are wrong.
Different aircraft in different operating environments have different standards for operation. There is no "right answer" that applies across the board to all types of aviation. If you are applying one to the other without good reason, you need to check your airmanship because it is probably sucking.
Regarding the OP, having an artificial 30-degree-bank limit in a GA aircraft might be a good idea and might be a terrible one.
In the USAF, the training environment and pipeline is constructed in such a way that it changes to match the judgment and decisionmaking skills of the students. In undergraduate training (the first 200 hours of training or so), the program has a robust and complex set of rules that limit the student's need to make decisions, as judgment only comes with experience (and students have very little of that); limits are conservatively established and adherence to the limits is strict with very little ability to deviate.
As a student moves into successive training programs after earning their wings, the artificial mechanisms are slowly rolled back, allowing for students to use the judgment they've gained to operate in a slightly more permissive environment. Students are expected to exercise judgment commensurate with their experience, and the artificial rules and procedures of the institution keep students from getting into situations they likely don't have the airmanship to handle.
I find this to be a pretty good methodology, with one exception: it is tough to convince students to leave the "warm, chewy center" of the operating environment of their previous training programs and explore the new areas of aircraft performance that successive programs explore. Students get artificial limits hard wired into their minds (rule of primacy, anyone?) and when they're under stress and forced to make a decision, often they hesitate to execute something that is allowed in the current program but was prohibited in a previous one.
I would be concerned with a 30-degree limit establishing some arbitrary limit in a new pilot's mind, even after he'd gained more than enough experience and airmanship to deal with the difference in aircraft performance at steeper bank angles. This is the same effect we've seen over the years with removing spins as part of primary training, and the de-emphasis of some types of stall training. I have flown with a good number of CFIs who are for some reason quite spooked by stalls and/or spins for no good reason other than they've been trained to think that there is some kind of danger there that doesn't exist in reality.
We should be very careful and thoughtful of second and third order effects when we choose to establish these kinds of artificial limits on maneuvering. It is counterproductive to raise pilots who think that steep bank angles (or other types of maneuvering away from the warm, chewy center of the performance envelope) are inherently dangerous and/or something to be scared of.
Different aircraft in different operating environments have different standards for operation. There is no "right answer" that applies across the board to all types of aviation. If you are applying one to the other without good reason, you need to check your airmanship because it is probably sucking.
Regarding the OP, having an artificial 30-degree-bank limit in a GA aircraft might be a good idea and might be a terrible one.
In the USAF, the training environment and pipeline is constructed in such a way that it changes to match the judgment and decisionmaking skills of the students. In undergraduate training (the first 200 hours of training or so), the program has a robust and complex set of rules that limit the student's need to make decisions, as judgment only comes with experience (and students have very little of that); limits are conservatively established and adherence to the limits is strict with very little ability to deviate.
As a student moves into successive training programs after earning their wings, the artificial mechanisms are slowly rolled back, allowing for students to use the judgment they've gained to operate in a slightly more permissive environment. Students are expected to exercise judgment commensurate with their experience, and the artificial rules and procedures of the institution keep students from getting into situations they likely don't have the airmanship to handle.
I find this to be a pretty good methodology, with one exception: it is tough to convince students to leave the "warm, chewy center" of the operating environment of their previous training programs and explore the new areas of aircraft performance that successive programs explore. Students get artificial limits hard wired into their minds (rule of primacy, anyone?) and when they're under stress and forced to make a decision, often they hesitate to execute something that is allowed in the current program but was prohibited in a previous one.
I would be concerned with a 30-degree limit establishing some arbitrary limit in a new pilot's mind, even after he'd gained more than enough experience and airmanship to deal with the difference in aircraft performance at steeper bank angles. This is the same effect we've seen over the years with removing spins as part of primary training, and the de-emphasis of some types of stall training. I have flown with a good number of CFIs who are for some reason quite spooked by stalls and/or spins for no good reason other than they've been trained to think that there is some kind of danger there that doesn't exist in reality.
We should be very careful and thoughtful of second and third order effects when we choose to establish these kinds of artificial limits on maneuvering. It is counterproductive to raise pilots who think that steep bank angles (or other types of maneuvering away from the warm, chewy center of the performance envelope) are inherently dangerous and/or something to be scared of.
Last edited:
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
FIFY.
I had enough people unintentionally try to kill me in Cessna's that if we were going to explore anything outside of 30 degree bank, we would be doing it with some altitude to spare. There is no reason that I can think of where there is an operational or training necessity to bank more than 30 degrees when under 1,000' in the pattern while performing primary training with impressionable students.
None.
And ALL of my students did spin training before I signed them off to solo, so it's not like they didn't get experience with cross controlled stalls or high bank angles (while doing steep turns). But we did it with altitude to spare. We did this partially for my comfort, because I wasn't interested in trying to rescue us while low to the ground more than I needed to, and because I didn't want to set a bad example for my students, giving them the impression that it was ok for them to perform 60 degree banks low to the ground when there was no need to do so (and before somebody cites it, the example that Russ gave isn't applicable to the instruction that I gave, as I've never flown a glider in my life).
Contrary to popular internet belief, flight instructors aren't there to be hot shot pilots, but instead they're there to be teachers, mentors, and roll models. If we, as teachers, spent more time being worried about providing our students with top notch instruction, and less on being awesome, we'd produce better pilots.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Ahhh, aerobatics instruction, then.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
For primary training in a 172 - I totally agree. Students at that point need to learn to fly stabilized approaches, and that is hard enough for them in level flight. And I agree teaching steep turns below 1500' is generally never appropriate.
One exception I can think of - a turn back to the departure runway engine-out. Really must be taught as 45 degrees exactly. Power off 180's are another example. If your pattern altitude is 800 AGL or lower, there are a lot of aircraft that need more than 30 degrees of bank to make a runway.
For what it is worth, the ag plane I fly has a big note in the cockpit "All turns 45deg bank." It glides like a brick. Low speed / high bank angle close to the ground is actually desirable in aerial application aircraft.
scott_l
Well-Known Member
For the comfort of the boxes.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I never taught my students to turn back to the runway if they lost an engine in a single. In fact I told them to forget the idea entirely and just to land straight ahead.
I don't know any instructors that do anything else.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
We brief a hard turn back altitude of 600 AGL. I also have a student attempt one before they solo.
z987k
Well-Known Member
What you do on the line flying boxes I could care less about. 90 degree turns if you feel like it. For the checkride however, 30 degrees is the limit.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
One thing I like, that I rarely see taught, is a departure brief on what to do after engine loss at various altitudes. Lots of times, there are better options than straight ahead. Particularly if there are buildings straight ahead, and a perfectly good taxiway or field just off to the right...
The conventional wisdom on the "impossible turn" seems to have morphed into "never ever consider turning on an engine out." Which is usually correct, but often enough isn't.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
Our check airmen train (and check) a return to the runway from 1000 AGL. As long as you remember to feather the prop, the greatest danger is overshooting.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Some rich guy killed himself with an instructor onboard doing that in the PC-12. I'd trust an astute professional but with my non professional students I always recommend straight ahead unless engine cuts out above 1000.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
So rich guys kill themselves, and astute professionals can handle it. Now what about ME?
Nark
Macho Superpilot
Herein lies the whole reason why I posted this article. Why did you teach that?
Every situation is different, and (in my humblest of opinions) sole purpose as a CFI is to teach said student the ability to make decisions.
This article's main point is instructors teach students things, simply "because" and not the "so-what" behind it.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
Double "like".
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Extra-like
