Commercial Maneuvers and their purpose?

Tristar

Tristar

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,837
Location
Lincoln, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Tristar
I think I can relate to many students and possibly some pilots alike in the fact that its easier to understand a maneuver if there is a real purpose behind it. Not only is understanding important but it creates a will in a student to practice and become skilled if he/she feels it answers that never ending question a CFI hears, "why am I doing this?" The obvious ones in private pilot training can pretty straight forward such as rectangular patterns but I've advanced since then to an odd set of tasks that I have yet to find a use for. Maneuvers such as Eights on Pylons, chandelles, and Lazy Eights. I ask my instructors when I'll ever use this or what the purpose is for it and I always get the same answer, "Its to help you understand the maneuverability of the airplane." Well, gee, I could make up a maneuver and tell ya that!

So I was wondering if the pilots and/or CFIs of POA could explain to me what it is that I'm missing so that it would feel more meaningfully to practice and possibly explain to my students someday when they ask, "why am I doing this?" The only thing I can think of is they created these maneuvers for some purpose in the World War eras.
 
It's not so much about "help[ing] you understand the maneuverability of the airplane" as it is about learning how to make the plane do exactly what you want it to do. Fly with the average PPL and you'll see someone who can get the plane to turn in the desired direction, or climb, or descend, and keep the ball more or less in the middle while doing it, but not able to establish and hold an exact bank angle while holding an exact pitch angle while holding an exact airspeed while keeping the ball exactly centered. These maneuvers challenge you to precise control of the aircraft while changing attitude, altitude, and airspeed all at the same time.

No, these maneuvers may not have any real practical application by themselves, but precise performance of them demonstrates the "mastery of the aircraft" the FAA wants to see from those holding a Commercial Pilot certificate. Think of them as something like the compulsory figures in figure skating -- totally boring to spectators, but totally revealing to judges looking for control and precision, and a lot harder to do than it looks.
 
Tristar said:
I ask my instructors when I'll ever use this or what the purpose is for it and I always get the same answer, "Its to help you understand the maneuverability of the airplane." Well, gee, I could make up a maneuver and tell ya that!
Click to expand...

Well from my perspective, it not only helps you understand the maneuverability of the aircraft but it also demonstrates that you can handle the aircraft exceptionally in varying situations/maneuvers within certain parameters set in the commercial PTS that the FAA deems acceptable for those to hold a commercial pilot certificate. It's an additional method to demonstrate mastery of the aircraft and precision flying.
 
I've heard the certificates and ratings described as follows. The private pilot certificate provides you with marginal performance skills and safety. The instrument rating increases safety level and performance. The commercial pilot certificate provides precision and increased safety levels along with a little grace thrown in.
 
yea like everyone else says, mastery of the aircraft is the goal. 8s on pylons are perfect when you've got a guy in the other seat wanting to take pictures of his house or whatever.

being in charge of the aircraft is the goal. i usually say that the goal of the commercial is to keep the passengers oblivious. everything should be smooth, and positive. even if you screw up, your flying during the recovery should make it feel like you meant to do that. its about confidence.

and have fun!
 
As an interesting (to me, anyway) aside, the CP PTS for helicopters has NO new maneuvers from the PP PTS. The tolerances are tighter is all. The only difference in maneuvers is in demonstarting autorotations. PP requires only a straight-in auto. CP requires an enhanced auto with either a 90 or 180 degree turn before the flare, something that most CFIs teach primary students anyway.

So it boils down to just being able to demonstrate more precision.
 
i think that there is only one extra manuever in the Glider CP PTS. emergency descent I think. Tolerances for precision landing are within 100 feet of a point instead of 200. i suppose standards in general are tighter, as normal.
 
Ron Levy said:
Think of them as something like the compulsory figures in figure skating -- totally boring to spectators, but totally revealing to judges looking for control and precision, and a lot harder to do than it looks.
Click to expand...

:D
Actually, done well - say, Senior level at Nationals - they're quite entertaining to watch, even when you can't inspect the tracings. (OK - maybe you have to be a skater or otherwise have some idea what you're seeing in order to appreciate it.)

Hmm... maybe this explains why I actually enjoy working on performance maneuvers...
 
Last edited:
As far as the pictures Tony, thats just turns around a point, not eights on pylons I don't think. I was told that they don't really care how far or close you are for the maneuver, the objective was to maintain pivotal altitude. Turns around a point is to "maintain a circular ground track with a uniform radius from an object while correcting for wind drift and maintaining altitude." To me, they're about the same though so I think I get where your coming from. Its pretty tricky to grasp the difference. In turns around a point, your juggling a "left and right" concept for the circular path, but in eights on pylons, you're juggling "up and down" to keep your wing on the specified point. Although I'm still having a little trouble with the "left and right." The instructor is always telling me, "dont cover up your reference point" but how can you do that without changing your bank?
 
Last edited:
i use 8s on for photo work so that the photographer can maintain a steady aim and not have to search around for the photo site.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's pretty tricky to grasp the difference between maintaining altitude and changing altitude?
Click to expand...
No, changing altitude for pylons and changing distance only for turns around a point. To me its the same maneuver, just different ways of doing it. Or am I completely confusing the concepts and myself?
 
Tristar said:
As far as the pictures Tony, thats just turns around a point, not eights on pylons I don't think. I was told that they don't really care how far or close you are for the maneuver, the objective was to maintain pivotal altitude. Turns around a point is to "maintain a circular ground track with a uniform radius from an object while correcting for wind drift and maintaining altitude." To me, they're about the same though so I think I get where your coming from. Its pretty tricky to grasp the difference. In turns around a point, your juggling a "left and right" concept for the circular path, but in eights on pylons, you're juggling "up and down" to keep your wing on the specified point. Although I'm still having a little trouble with the "left and right." The instructor is always telling me, "dont cover up your reference point" but how can you do that without changing your bank?
Click to expand...
Eights on Pylon IS a banking maneuver. Either you don't understand what your CFI is saying or he is stating the maneuver incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
It's not so much about "help[ing] you understand the maneuverability of the airplane" as it is about learning how to make the plane do exactly what you want it to do. Fly with the average PPL and you'll see someone who can get the plane to turn in the desired direction, or climb, or descend, and keep the ball more or less in the middle while doing it, but not able to establish and hold an exact bank angle while holding an exact pitch angle while holding an exact airspeed while keeping the ball exactly centered. These maneuvers challenge you to precise control of the aircraft while changing attitude, altitude, and airspeed all at the same time.

No, these maneuvers may not have any real practical application by themselves, but precise performance of them demonstrates the "mastery of the aircraft" the FAA wants to see from those holding a Commercial Pilot certificate. Think of them as something like the compulsory figures in figure skating -- totally boring to spectators, but totally revealing to judges looking for control and precision, and a lot harder to do than it looks.
Click to expand...

Ron, I would say you were right on...but I can't. The reason is that they aren't required for the multi engine commercial and a single engine commercial is not a requirement for the multi. How do you reconcile this? One would think that flying a multi should require a higher level of "mastery of the aircraft" not a lesser one.
 
Lance F said:
Ron, I would say you were right on...but I can't. The reason is that they aren't required for the multi engine commercial and a single engine commercial is not a requirement for the multi. How do you reconcile this? One would think that flying a multi should require a higher level of "mastery of the aircraft" not a lesser one.
Click to expand...
I think that the FAA assumes, based on the historic trend, that you'll get the ASEL rating first. Frankly, I see no reason not to do all the ASEL performance manuevers in a twin (at the Commercial level, you really ought to know what to do if one engine quits at the top of a chandelle), but maybe the AFM's for too many twins prohibit those maneuvers.
 
Tristar said:
No, changing altitude for pylons and changing distance only for turns around a point. To me its the same maneuver, just different ways of doing it. Or am I completely confusing the concepts and myself?
Click to expand...
You don't change distance for turns around a point.

Turns around a point is a constant airspeed, constant altitude, constant radius, maneuver in which you adjust for wind effects by changing bank angle and crab to maintain the pre-chosen ground track around the point without changing altitude or airspeed.

In contrast, pylon 8s is a constant airspeed, constant reference point (sometimes referred to as "wingtip in the pylon") maneuver in which you account for wind effects by changing altitude and bank as needed to maintain the reference line without changing airspeed.
 
Tristar said:
No, changing altitude for pylons and changing distance only for turns around a point. To me its the same maneuver, just different ways of doing it. Or am I completely confusing the concepts and myself?
Click to expand...
My take on it is:

Q: When is an airplane ready to land?
A: When it wants to stop flying.

That is a good Private pilot answer. The commercial pilot answer is:

Q: When is an airplane ready to land?
A: On the beginning of the second stripe, because it will want to stop flying at the beginning of the second stripe as I have prepared to to be so.
 
Tristar said:
Maneuvers such as Eights on Pylons, chandelles, and Lazy Eights. I ask my instructors when I'll ever use this or what the purpose is for it and I always get the same answer, "Its to help you understand the maneuverability of the airplane." Well, gee, I could make up a maneuver and tell ya that!

So I was wondering if the pilots and/or CFIs of POA could explain to me what it is that I'm missing so that it would feel more meaningfully to practice and possibly explain to my students someday when they ask, "why am I doing this?" The only thing I can think of is they created these maneuvers for some purpose in the World War eras.
Click to expand...

OK... then what would your maneuver be?

FWIW: The Lazy 8; why is it flown and so named?
 
Improving stick and rudder is what I've been told. Just showing and proving that you can take a more complex maueuver and work it out.
 
Danos said:
Improving stick and rudder is what I've been told. Just showing and proving that you can take a more complex maueuver and work it out.
Click to expand...

Partially correct, but there's more to the complete answer.
 
tlglenn said:
I thought the compulsory figures were eliminated :D
Click to expand...

Glad I had just swallowed my Coca-Cola before I read that, or I'd be cleaning it off my monitor right now. Good thing we don't have East German DPEs!!
 
R. Levy's answers are the best. So I won't repeat it all, just to confirm that the comm. maneuvers allow the applicant to demonstrate further control and mastery of the aircraft. It isn't a case of learning manuevers so they'll be useful every time one flies. But mastering an aircraft leads to safety. Or more towards safety. And the FAA demands a comm. applicant demonstrate more exact and smooth control of the aircraft, and this is a good way to do that, though pilots could argue all day about what might be better. By the way, I hear many CFIs explaining to comm. applicants that some of the maneuvers, particularly the chandelle, will or may come in handy in the mntns [a real concern here in Colorado]...in other words, find yourself in a box canyon, for example, and use that cool chandelle to turn around. Don't believe it. I've done years of mntn. flying and while I have not found myself needing to scoot back out of a box canyon or the like, I'd hate to have to depend on a chandelle to extricate myself from the situation.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
FWIW: The Lazy 8; why is it flown and so named?
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular opinion, a Lazy 8 is not so-named because it's a lazy maneuver (although when I did one in the Hawker, I think it took about 7 minutes)...it's so-named because if you draw a line where the nose of the airplane is pointed during the maneuver, it results in an 8 lying on its side. A "lazy" 8. I guess they could have named it the "infinity" just as easily.

IMO, besides the mastery of the airplane stuff, a Lazy 8 is an exellent illustration of positive stability, both in pitch and bank. What I perceive as the "proper" way to do one has the airplane doing most of the maneuver itself.
Baron 55 said:
By the way, I hear many CFIs explaining to comm. applicants that some of the maneuvers, particularly the chandelle, will or may come in handy in the mntns [a real concern here in Colorado]...in other words, find yourself in a box canyon, for example, and use that cool chandelle to turn around. Don't believe it. I've done years of mntn. flying and while I have not found myself needing to scoot back out of a box canyon or the like, I'd hate to have to depend on a chandelle to extricate myself from the situation.
Click to expand...
If you really HAD to select a commercial maneuver as the basis for a box-canyon turnaround, I'd select half of a Lazy 8...just make the initial pitch-up BEFORE starting the turn, so that your turn radius is reduced without undue load factor on the airplane.

IIRC, the chandelle was a WWI escape maneuver...if the guy on your tail stalled while you were still flying/climbing, you'd escape. If you stalled first, he won. Fighter pilots still say that the guy who can better use the vertical instead of just horizontal maneuvering will probably come out "on top", pun intended.

The lazy 8 and chandelle are all about teaching you to control the airplane in 3 dimensions, and in the case of the chandelle to its performance limit. While we fly in a 3-dimentional airspace, the vast majority of our flying is 2-dimensional.

Fly safe!

David
 
Baron 55 said:
By the way, I hear many CFIs explaining to comm. applicants that some of the maneuvers, particularly the chandelle, will or may come in handy in the mntns [a real concern here in Colorado]
Click to expand...
...and there's the old explanation of how the steep spiral is helpful for getting donw through a sucker hole.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Contrary to popular opinion, a Lazy 8 is not so-named because it's a lazy maneuver (although when I did one in the Hawker, I think it took about 7 minutes)...it's so-named because if you draw a line where the nose of the airplane is pointed during the maneuver, it results in an 8 lying on its side. A "lazy" 8. I guess they could have named it the "infinity" just as easily.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

It bugs me when CFIs try to get a student to do a lazy eight as s...l...o...w...l...y as possible thinking it has to be that way, because that's it's name, after all. Not true. There is nothing anywhere saying that the maneuver itself has to be done "lazily," and it's a common misconception.

From the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook, pg. 9-6:

"This maneuver derives its name from the manner in which the extended longitudinal axis of the airplane is made to trace a flight pattern in the form of a figure 8 lying on its side (a lazy 8)."
Click to expand...
 
skyflyer8 said:
It bugs me when CFIs try to get a student to do a lazy eight as s...l...o...w...l...y as possible thinking it has to be that way, because that's it's name, after all. Not true. There is nothing anywhere saying that the maneuver itself has to be done "lazily," and it's a common misconception.
Click to expand...
Check the Commercial PTS on this:
FAA-S-8081-12B said:
5. Achieves the following throughout the maneuver
a. approximately 30° bank at the steepest point.
b. constant change of pitch and roll rate.
c. altitude tolerance at 180° points, ±100 feet (30 meters) from entry altitude.
d. airspeed tolerance at the 180° point plus ±10° knots from entry airspeed.
e. heading tolerance at the 180° point ±10°.
[emphasis added]
Click to expand...
If you do not exceed 30° of bank (which means you'll average around 15° of bank), you cannot do it any way but slowly (generally averaging less than standard rate turn). The reason it's done slowly is that it's harder to do slowly, which means the applicant must demonstrate more skillful control of the aircraft, which is what the Commercial ride is all about. Yes, you can do Lazy-8's a lot faster with a lot more bank, and they're a lot more fun that way, but they do not require the same level of skill to accomplish, which would defeat the purpose of doing them on the Commercial practical test.
 
Last edited:
If the Lazy Eight is done as graceful as intended, it will seem pretty slow. Of course, I don't recall any of mine being all that graceful. :)

The other thing about the Lazy Eight and the Chandelle is they are often taught with mechanic-like actions at given points. That's simply not possible for them to turn out well. Students tend to fly each segment with that mechanical movement per the PTS and as taught. There's a certain amount of "fly by the seat of your pants" in performing these maneuvers and have them turn out graceful and particularly with optimal performance in the case of a Chandelle. But, everyone seems afraid to use that phrase with a student who is usually a fresh instrument pilot. I'm not quite there yet but it will be a trick in learning how to help them tie those segments together to make a graceful maneuver.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Contrary to popular opinion, a Lazy 8 is not so-named because it's a lazy maneuver (although when I did one in the Hawker, I think it took about 7 minutes)...it's so-named because if you draw a line where the nose of the airplane is pointed during the maneuver, it results in an 8 lying on its side. A "lazy" 8. I guess they could have named it the "infinity" just as easily.

IMO, besides the mastery of the airplane stuff, a Lazy 8 is an exellent illustration of positive stability, both in pitch and bank. What I perceive as the "proper" way to do one has the airplane doing most of the maneuver itself.

Fly safe!

David
Click to expand...

I was told once that the maneuver was designed so officers could access their flight student's aplomb by observing the sideways figure 8 from a lawn chair (pilot's reference point).
 
Ron Levy said:
I think you once had smoke blown up your nose.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No doubt, and not just once.
From what other vantage point is the tracing of the "8" so readily apparent when presented at the correct alignment?
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
If the Lazy Eight is done as graceful as intended, it will seem pretty slow. Of course, I don't recall any of mine being all that graceful. :)

The other thing about the Lazy Eight and the Chandelle is they are often taught with mechanic-like actions at given points. That's simply not possible for them to turn out well. Students tend to fly each segment with that mechanical movement per the PTS and as taught. There's a certain amount of "fly by the seat of your pants" in performing these maneuvers and have them turn out graceful and particularly with optimal performance in the case of a Chandelle. But, everyone seems afraid to use that phrase with a student who is usually a fresh instrument pilot. I'm not quite there yet but it will be a trick in learning how to help them tie those segments together to make a graceful maneuver.
Click to expand...
Or, to sum it up with one word: fluidity.

Those mechanical points of which you speak are simply reference points. It's an okay (more or less acceptable, ie, satisfactory) teaching method. The pilot flies a graceful path while managing to hit those points throughout the maneuver.

It's all about being in control.
 
I was fresh off my IR training when I did my commercial. I was having a difficult time and my instructor reminded me that this rating is *visual* !! Look OUTSIDE, will ya ?!?. That really helped with the mechanical feeling to maneuvers.

Lazy 8s are fun once allowed to feel the plane. I found myself saying up the hill, slide over the top, down the hill... it was like a amusement park ride in slo-mo. Chandelles were my favorites to perform, although my lazy 8s were probably done better. I enjoyed the power-off 180 landings. My least favorite is steep spirals.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Check the Commercial PTS on this...
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm not disagreeing with a need to do it somewhat slowly. I'm just saying people confuse the origin & meaning of the name.

It would be great if the FAA could magically standardize this maneuver so there is one exactly right way to do it. We've had discussions like this before about how there's more than one way to interpret the maneuvers in the PTS.
 
skyflyer8 said:
It would be great if the FAA could magically standardize this maneuver so there is one exactly right way to do it. We've had discussions like this before about how there's more than one way to interpret the maneuvers in the PTS.
Click to expand...

If you're actually looking only at the PTS, I can see your confusion.

The Airplane Flying Handbook gives a very detailed description of this maneuver, as well as all other maneuvers listed in all the PTS's.

This is standardization. The AFH, FAA-H-8083-3A is listed as a reference for all the flight maneuvers, and each maneuver is detailed in great length as to how it is to be done.

The skilled reproduction of the maneuver as described in the manual is The Only Reason for these maneuvers. Sure, they can be done in any number of ways, but they would be hard to evaluate. When the examiner has a model to go by, then he can evaluate based on the Handbook model.

That is the only reason. Instructors tend to pass on what their instructor told them, and some try to make up practical reasons for the maneuver, but the bottom line is that the pilot applicant can control the airplane around it's pitch, roll, and yaw axies while keeping the ball centered,
and duplicating a maneuver in a standardized way as described in the Airplane Flying Handbook.
 
skyflyer8 said:
Don't worry, I'm not disagreeing with a need to do it somewhat slowly. I'm just saying people confuse the origin & meaning of the name.
Click to expand...
I understand the confusion on the name. However...
It would be great if the FAA could magically standardize this maneuver so there is one exactly right way to do it. We've had discussions like this before about how there's more than one way to interpret the maneuvers in the PTS.
Click to expand...
...the PTS section quoted above (especially the 30-degree bank limit, which drives how everything else is done) leaves little room for interpretation in how to do the maneuver on the Commercial Airplane practical test. For any other purpose, it's just for fun, and for that, I see no need for "standardization" of the maneuver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top