Standard Rate Turns required?

Fly_Unity

Fly_Unity

Well-Known Member
In doing a checkride today, I had a student constantly exceeding standard rate turns (up to 45 degrees of bank) to catch a course that he was about to overshoot. I critiqued him, and during the debrief I mentioned to his instructor that one should never go beyond standard rate turns on an IFR flight plan.

His instructor disagreed with me. Saying that there is nothing limiting IFR turns to standard rate. Although I disagreed, I could not find a source to back me up.

I personally believe its not wise to exceed it, especially in partial panel situations. But legally speaking, is this allowed? What does ATC think about it? Anyone know of a source I can reference?
 
I think its one of those "reccomended" things. That being said, applicant should plan his/her course intercepts better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
In partial panel, timing is required, so that's different. I wouldn't like to see 45 degrees, but I used to teach up to 30 to catch a course. I never heard of a reference suggesting not to exceed standard rate. I think ATC would rather see you not shoot through the course rather than care about exceeding standard rate.
 
Standard rate, use up to 30 if you need it, is what I teach. I think it's more of a pilot disorientation issue rather than an ATC issue. There really is no hard rule, but ATC probably does have a rough expectation of turn radius based on aircraft type and ground speed.

Were you in IMC or were they under the hood when when using 45? Stick them in the soup where they can't cheat and see how comfortable they are with using 45 all the time.
 
Think real life flying. If you need a little more take it. Nothing excessive. Do you have your students to steep turns under the hood?
 
The only limitation is 30* of bank under 135 (and probably 121). The instructor is right. Bring it around to 60 (lol).
 
gotWXdagain said:
I think its one of those "reccomended" things. That being said, applicant should plan his/her course intercepts better.
Click to expand...
I agree. If the conversation as reported is the whole of it, the instructor's attitude is a bit concerning. Here's an instrument student that is far enough behind the airplane that he needs to perform banks that are considered steep in visual flight and his instructor seems to be arguing about whether standard rate turns are "regulatory" or not.

BTW, I'm not aware of an official reference to standard rate as a requirement. I don't even think the term is used or a maximum bank angle is specified in the instrument PTS.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I agree. If the conversation as reported is the whole of it, the instructor's attitude is a bit concerning. Here's an instrument student that is far enough behind the airplane that he needs to perform banks that are considered steep in visual flight and his instructor seems to be arguing about whether standard rate turns are "regulatory" or not.

BTW, I'm not aware of an official reference to standard rate as a requirement. I don't even think the term is used or a maximum bank angle is specified in the instrument PTS.
Click to expand...

You're right, nowhere is bank angle even mentioned in course intercepting and tracking.
 
z987k said:
The only limitation is 30* of bank under 135 (and probably 121). The instructor is right. Bring it around to 60 (lol).
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that reference if you have it off hand, I've never heard that outside of a GOM - our GOM specifies something similar to this, however, I don't know of a Reg that covers that.
 
ppragman said:
I'd like to see that reference if you have it off hand, I've never heard that outside of a GOM - our GOM specifies something similar to this, however, I don't know of a Reg that covers that.
Click to expand...
Many 121 transports holler "BANK ANGLE, BANK ANGLE" at 45-50.

"Correcting!"
 
It all seems pretty arbitrary to me.

A 30° bank is required for a standard rate turn at 210 knots TAS.... so what are you supposed to do if you're going faster than that?

At 364 knots I'd need a 45° bank to complete a standard rate turn.

So, are you supposed to turn slower or bank harder?
 
ppragman said:
I'd like to see that reference if you have it off hand, I've never heard that outside of a GOM - our GOM specifies something similar to this, however, I don't know of a Reg that covers that.
Click to expand...
You know, I didn't know the reg, went looking and came up empty. I've been told now at 2 companies that this is a 135 limitation so someone is getting that from somewhere. I'm curious as to where now though.
 
rframe said:
It all seems pretty arbitrary to me.

A 30° bank is required for a standard rate turn at 210 knots TAS.... so what are you supposed to do if you're going faster than that?

At 364 knots I'd need a 45° bank to complete a standard rate turn.

So, are you supposed to turn slower or bank harder?
Click to expand...

Most people aren't doing approaches at 364 knots.
 
I can't for the life of me find the reference, but you (OP) are correct. Somewhere the FAA has said that lower speed aircraft are expected to turn at standard rate (3 degrees per second), and higher speed aircraft at half standard rate (1.5/sec). If your aircraft has an FMS, it will make turns at 25 degrees of bank. I completely agree with you in failing (edit: criticizing) this student. There are multiple reasons stated throughout the IFH that exceeding standard rate while IFR is not good. IMO, the biggest being, that in a moderately fast airplane you stand a good chance of tumbling the gyros.
 
Hammertime said:
I can't for the life of me find the reference, but you (OP) are correct. Somewhere the FAA has said that lower speed aircraft are expected to turn at standard rate (3 degrees per second), and higher speed aircraft at half standard rate (1.5/sec). If your aircraft has an FMS, it will make turns at 25 degrees of bank. I completely agree with you in failing (edit: criticizing) this student. There are multiple reasons stated throughout the IFH that exceeding standard rate while IFR is not good. IMO, the biggest being, that in a moderately fast airplane you stand a good chance of tumbling the gyros.
Click to expand...
Lol, wow. I don't think anyone is going past 60 degrees, let alone what it takes to tumble gyros. Besides, who is banking that much in level flight? We've already established that standard rate at 364kts is 45*. That's not tumbling any gyros. How fast are you going inside the terminal area?
 
The more important question is why he needed to exceed a standard rate turn to keep from overshooting the course - that's where I'd concentrate my critique because it potentially signals a lack of SA and could lead him into a situation from which he can't recover.
 
Hammertime said:
I can't for the life of me find the reference, but you (OP) are correct. Somewhere the FAA has said that lower speed aircraft are expected to turn at standard rate (3 degrees per second), and higher speed aircraft at half standard rate (1.5/sec). If your aircraft has an FMS, it will make turns at 25 degrees of bank. I completely agree with you in failing (edit: criticizing) this student. There are multiple reasons stated throughout the IFH that exceeding standard rate while IFR is not good. IMO, the biggest being, that in a moderately fast airplane you stand a good chance of tumbling the gyros.
Click to expand...
You're thinking about holding patterns, which is definitely directly addressed.
3 degrees per second, or,
30 degrees of bank, or
25 degrees if a flight director system is used.
 
Fly_Unity said:
In doing a checkride today, I had a student constantly exceeding standard rate turns (up to 45 degrees of bank) to catch a course that he was about to overshoot. I critiqued him, and during the debrief I mentioned to his instructor that one should never go beyond standard rate turns on an IFR flight plan.

His instructor disagreed with me. Saying that there is nothing limiting IFR turns to standard rate. Although I disagreed, I could not find a source to back me up.

I personally believe its not wise to exceed it, especially in partial panel situations. But legally speaking, is this allowed? What does ATC think about it? Anyone know of a source I can reference?
Click to expand...
Of course it's legal in that it's not expressly prohibited (limitations on aerobatic flight notwithstanding).

The word you're looking for is safe. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top