The newly sanctioned commercial maneuvers
These have been their concerns. The steep spiral, by its very name, indicates a certain level of zestful excitement. As its name implies, it is a maneuver rarely successful if done leisurely. Still, there are those few flight instructors who, having never experienced the steep spiral, without guidance have begun to teach their students to use a medium bank when actually a much steeper bank is required. Therefore, pilot examiners tend to ask questions regarding the maneuver before flight. The first PTS objective is that you exhibit knowledge of the elements related to a steep spiral.
This requirement has haunted those flight instructors whose training came in the late 1990s, when the maneuver lay dormant in the FAA's goodies box. Many pilots who remember the maneuver have welcomed it back with open arms, if not great fanfare. It is an excellent control, timing, and planning maneuver. And it is fun! Still, the texts guiding instructors, students, and examiners seem to have changed with the times. This does concern you, as you look forward to your commercial checkride, in that the newest references describe the maneuver with an arid paucity of words just when, like a soaking rain, they are needed most.
The current reference, FAA-H-8083-3-the Airplane Flying Handbook (AFH)-describes the essence of the maneuver on page 6-15 by noting: "The radius should be such that the steepest bank will not exceed 60 degrees." Well and good. What happens, though, when the cautious flyer decides that, to avoid any possibility of exceeding that limitation, he will perform the maneuver at approximately 30 degrees of bank (give or take 10 degrees)? A hint-the superceded reference, the venerable Flight Training Handbook (Advisory Circular 61-21, often called the "21 Manual"), said: "The radius should be such that the steepest bank will be approximately 50 to 55 degrees." (Regular readers may remember an admonition from this author not to discard the old 21 Manual just yet. This is one of the reasons.)
Because of the altitude and vertical perspective, a wider radius is nearly impossible to complete successfully while doing three complete turns and meeting the remaining objectives of this task. Visual perspective has a strong bearing on Element 2 of the PTS objective list. That reference directs us to select an altitude sufficient for three complete circles during the maneuver.
That seems simple enough; climb to thousands of feet above the surface and there is not the slightest chance of failing that requirement. Visual perspective? Oh, yes, that! The farther one is from an object, the less detail one sees, and the greater distance one must move in relation to that object in order to notice the change in position. This is especially true when directly above the target, because that means looking down vertically. Since our eyes are roughly three inches (75 millimeters) apart, the ratio of scant inches between each eye compared to thousands of feet above the ground should make it clear why "depth perception" is no aid to a good steep spiral. There's no substitute for skill and knowledge. Skill comes from experience, and knowledge from study and discussion. Too much of the discussion this writer has encountered has concentrated on legalistic aspects of the maneuver, rather than the aerodynamic requirements.
For example, applicants and instructors alike have struggled with the language mentioned above from the current AFH, stating only that the bank is not to exceed 60 degrees. A key to successfully learning the maneuver is the realization that the PTS sets the limits; V.B.4: "Applies wind-drift correction to track a constant radius circle around selected reference point with bank not to exceed 60 degrees at the steepest point in turn," while the referenced FAA-H-8083-3 discusses how one performs the task: "The steep spiral is nothing more than a constant gliding turn, during which a constant radius around a point on the ground is maintained similar to the maneuver, turns around a point." The way in which pilots successfully perform the maneuver has not changed, nor has the fact that examiners use this maneuver to demonstrate applicants' understanding and observance of the effects of load factor on an airplane in flight. It all comes down to that.
The other terrible twin of these reinstated maneuvers is the power-off 180-degree accuracy landing. While the PTS grants examiners an option in performing the steep spiral, the accuracy landing is required.
Accuracy landings, like the steep spiral, can be tremendous fun. Why else are accuracy landings one of the most popular events at fly-ins? How enigmatic to see applicants rigid in terror at the very same maneuver that older pilots enjoy.
One of the most common specifics that examiners must consider when judging the power-off 180-degree accuracy landing is the question of entry altitude. The PTS specifies that the applicant position the airplane on the downwind leg (no problem there) parallel to the landing runway (does that mean the airplane's longitudinal axis is parallel, or the ground track is parallel?) and (here it comes!) not more than 1,000 feet above ground level (agl). Now, that should present no problem for many pilots whose home airport has a traffic pattern of 1,000 feet agl. But for everybody else, it can be a major issue.
Although examiners routinely hear applicants assert that traffic patterns are routinely 1,000 feet agl, many airports are, for a variety of reasons, either higher or lower. Those traffic patterns of less than 1,000 agl pose no problem for the maneuver in question, as both the PTS and the AFH allude to starting the maneuver at no more than 1,000 feet agl. The problems begin when traffic patterns are above that value. The most common issue examiners must address concerns those airports whose A/FD-published traffic patterns are within 1,100 feet agl. Since this falls within the plus-or-minus 100 feet allowed by Area of Operation III, Task B, traffic patterns, few flight instructors see any conflict with Area of Operation IV, Task K's demand of "not more than 1,000 feet agl." The operational difficulty for applicants in this case is that of beginning an altitude-sensitive, judgment-critical maneuver starting from a position of up to 10 percent of imprecision in either direction, when one does not have the same tolerance for error at the touchdown point. Imagine the response of an Olympic high diver should you tell her that the diving board's height may randomly vary by 20 percent from one dive to the next!
Discussing this issue with one Flight Standards District Office, this writer found differences of focus between inspectors. As one inspector said regarding the PTS's 1,000-foot-agl statement, "If I were king, I would say...." This is an understandable response, and it is a letter-of-the-law approach. But neither king, queen, kaiser, nor czar can change the governing laws of perspective dictating that the greater the altitude, the more difficult it becomes for people to judge vertical maneuvers. As the AFH notes: "Greater accuracy in judgment and maneuvering is required at higher altitudes." So does this mean that starting the maneuver from above 1,000 feet is disqualifying? Not necessarily. Until the FAA specifies that for the purpose of this maneuver, one is not technically flying a traffic pattern, the traffic pattern tolerance can reasonably be considered to apply, when that traffic pattern is within 1,100 feet agl. When their local traffic patterns are above that value, instructors and applicants might wish to discuss the issue with their local pilot examiners. Those pilot examiners should have uniform guidance from their governing FSDO and adhere to it.
For as much trouble as this maneuver seems to pose, why include it in testing? Precision control of one's airplane demands intimacy with its characteristics, including power-off approach steepness, approach stability, and constant evaluation of the relationships of airplane configuration, pitch attitude, airspeed, descent rate, and rudder control. Precision in detail should be the commercial pilot's calling card, for it is the hallmark of a professional.
Dave Wilkerson is a designated pilot examiner, a writer/photographer, and a historian. He has been a certificated flight instructor for 22 years with approximately 2,000 hours of dual given, and is a single- and multiengine commercial-rated pilot.
Related Articles
