Are you outside in, or inside out

When a pilot makes control inputs based directly on the perceived attitude of the airplane with respect to horizon reference or runway environment, he or she is flying outside and checking inside. If a pilot makes control inputs based directly on instrument indications that represent the result of the aircraft’s attitude and power setting, and then looks outside to determine the resulting change in trajectory, the pilot is flying inside and checking outside. The difference in the quality of flying produced by these two methods is remarkable.

Two pilots carefully clear the area and set power and trim appropriately for the maneuver. The first pilot picks a visual landmark off the nose of the airplane, a reference on which she will begin and end the steep turn. She rolls smoothly into a 45-degree bank while looking at the relationship of the cowling to the horizon. Forty-five degrees is one-half of 90, so the bank angle is easy to estimate.

The pilot knows she will need a slightly higher pitch attitude and a little extra power in the turn. So she raises the nose slightly with reference to the horizon while making a small power adjustment, then takes a quick peek inside the airplane to check the altitude, vertical speed indicator, airspeed, bank angle, and coordination. If she notes that the altitude is 50 feet low and airspeed is a little high, she recognizes the need for higher pitch. So she looks back outside the airplane and raises the nose a little with reference to the horizon, while confirming that her bank angle is correct. Another peek back inside the cockpit verifies that the altitude is now stable and correct, as are all other parameters. She makes attitude adjustments so small they don’t register on the flight instruments, but are easily visible when referencing the cowling on the horizon. She occasionally glances inside the airplane to confirm that her selected pitch attitude—combined with the updated power setting—is keeping all the flight parameters stable. As she nears her initial heading she sees her reference landmark and smoothly applies aileron and rudder to roll out exactly on her starting heading.

If my student or I can perform a steep turn to PTS tolerances using this "incorrect" method, how incorrect could it be?The other pilot rolls into the turn with reference to the attitude indicator. He has started the turn on a cardinal heading of 90 degrees. After establishing his bank angle, his attention is quickly drawn to the altimeter, which is starting to show a decrease. The pilot applies back-pressure to correct for altitude loss. If a lot of force is required to hold altitude, he may add a little nose-up trim—and perhaps some additional power. Dividing his attention, he grabs a quick look outside, and seeing no traffic, looks back inside the cockpit. Noting that altitude is decreasing again, the pilot observes bank angle increasing and corrects back to 45 degrees.

After another look outside, he returns to his instruments and notes that altitude is now 75 feet high. He releases some back-pressure and reduces power to compensate. As he scans the heading indicator, he sees that he is 30 degrees away from his starting heading. Concentrating on leading the rollout by a correct amount, he loses track of the altimeter and fails to see the rapid altitude decrease developing. He undershoots his heading by nine degrees, arresting his descent and finishing the turn 90 feet below his starting altitude.

Both pilots have completed their steep turn within the tolerances of the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards in terms of altitude, heading, bank angle, and airspeed. Each pilot used a different technique. The first pilot was flying outside, checking inside—making control inputs measured directly by specific visual attitude references. The second pilot was flying inside, checking outside—making control inputs reactively in response to deviations of the altimeter, airspeed, and heading indicator. This does not work as well, because even though his control input does arrest the deviation, the attitude correction—not being measured directly—is less accurate, and is likely to be either excessive or insufficient for sustained stable flight without further excursions.

The application of stick-and-rudder attitude flying skills can refresh and improve every aspect of aircraft control.So why is the method used by the first pilot superior? What work are we actually performing when we apply pressure to those flight controls? And what is the most accurate reference by which to measure how much work needs to be done?

Aircraft attitude refers to the orientation of the aircraft with respect to the horizon. Changing or maintaining aircraft attitude is how we control the airplane in flight. We can find a good description of attitude flying, and how to integrate instrument references while practicing it, in the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook.

In the process of learning to fly, many of us forget the fundamental concept of aircraft control. Maybe it’s the variables that enter into the aircraft control equation when we consider the role of power combined with attitude at various airspeeds and drag configurations. Perhaps we were admonished one too many times to watch our airspeed—and bingo, from then on we watch our airspeed when making pitch changes. Or we hear “Step on the ball” again and again and eventually, this is where we look during turns, climbs, and stall practice. “Watch your altitude” eventually causes us to look at the altimeter when attempting to maintain level flight.

If there is such a thing as a “normal anomaly,” insufficient attitude awareness during control input qualifies. As we try to fly specific airspeeds, altitudes, and headings it is easy to start looking at these lagging indicators of the result of attitude and thrust. Is this so wrong? After all, we can identify a lot of flying that is accomplished more or less in this manner without disastrous results.

When driving a car, we don’t turn the wheel 1.35 turns left or right to go around a corner. We employ a visual feedback loop; our eyes perceive the position of the car in the turn, and we increase or decrease the amount of steering-wheel input accordingly. We could use other references to accomplish the turn, such as a specific amount of steering wheel input or the sound of the tires singing on the grooved shoulder. But most of us would agree that using a specific visual cue—sighting around the corner and making micro adjustments to the steering wheel—is not only more accurate, but is in fact the correct way to drive.

The same is true in the airplane when performing a steep turn. Is a secondary reference, like catching a glimpse of the VSI showing an 800-foot-per-minute descent, valuable? Sure, just like a passenger shouting “look out” as we are about to cross the double yellow line into oncoming traffic. When either of these things happen, we refocus on the primary and most accurate visual reference for control: In the car, quit tuning the radio and look at the road; in the airplane, look out the windscreen and note the nose-low attitude. In both cases we correct our situation with direct reference to the outside visual cues.

Flying is three-dimensional, and we don’t always pull up to go up, or push down to go down. But even when we are making counterintuitive inputs—pitching down to climb when operating on the backside of the power curve, for example—we do so by measuring this input specifically on the horizon. Like looking at the curve in the road as we drive around it in a car, this is the most accurate way to control the airplane in flight.

Both of the Pilots in the example are able to produce acceptable results with different techniques—one proactive, the other reactive. Maybe this clouds our ability to differentiate between right and wrong when it comes to control technique. If my student or I can perform a steep turn to PTS tolerances using this “incorrect” method, how incorrect could it be?

On my first takeoff in the left seat of a Cessna 172, my instructor told me that when the airspeed reached 60, I should pull back on the control yoke until the hole in the control column (the one that the control lock fits into) was two inches aft of the locked position. Just because this worked, however, does not make it a correct or valid technique for learning control inputs during takeoff. The first pilot in the example directly measured aircraft attitude by horizon reference, and controlled the airplane proactively by this reference with brief glimpses at the resulting instrument indications. The second pilot used a technique that can work, but can’t be precisely measured, is less accurate, and is more difficult to repeat with any reliability.

So when we talk of stick-and-rudder flying skills we are describing attitude flying, and we are actually describing the most fundamentally correct concept of airplane control. The proof that this method of flying is most correct is that it yields the best results. The way we control the airplane is to use the flight controls, in the correct sequence and proportion, to change or maintain aircraft attitude with respect to the natural horizon or the runway environment as appropriate for phase of flight.

Although we do see examples where pilots exert control over the airplane by using the power controls alone, power is not a primary flight control. We adjust power to increase or decrease thrust as necessary. Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators says, “For the airplane to remain in steady level flight, equilibrium must be obtained by lift equal to the airplane weight and a powerplant thrust equal to the airplane drag.” We must have sufficient thrust available to balance aircraft drag for the specific aircraft attitude selected.

Now that we have defined what we are talking about—stick and rudder means attitude flying, and attitude flying means controlling the airplane with direct reference to the natural horizon or the runway environment—let’s examine the performances of the two pilots. Is this really an accurate description of the performance of a steep turn by one pilot using stick-and-rudder attitude flying skills, and the other using the instruments that register the values of the maneuvering parameters?

The first pilot flew a better steep turn using stick-and-rudder attitude flying skills. The difference between the two pilots is that one is proactive, and the other is reactive. The stick-and-rudder attitude pilot recognizes that every aircraft control input is made with the intention of changing or maintaining aircraft attitude. The airspeed indicator, the altimeter, the heading indicator, and the inclinometer all register the results of the attitude selected combined with the selected thrust setting: “Pitch plus power equals performance.” The second pilot fell into the trap of looking at these resultant instrument indications while making control inputs, which quickly turns into a habit and subsequently degrades the accuracy of every flight maneuver.

Attitude flying is more effective because the direct measurement of pitch and bank results in proactive instead of reactive control inputs. Control of the aircraft by visual reference also is more accurate because of the visual geometry involved. When making pitch inputs with reference to the horizon, think of a laser beam projecting straight out from the spinner of the airplane to the horizon—a very small pitch change results in a dramatic change in the reference of the imaginary laser to the horizon, which is 20 miles away.

Experiment with this at altitude. You will find that you can make easily discernible pitch changes when looking outside that do not register at all on the static instruments, and perhaps just barely on the attitude gyro. When using attitude against horizon, we can measure pitch to a much finer tolerance than when using the lagging reference of altimeter, or even the attitude gyro.

Even when flying behind the most advanced aircraft display systems, the application of stick-and-rudder attitude flying skills can refresh and improve every aspect of aircraft control. We can improve the results of each maneuver and flight condition when accomplished using specific outside visual references, compared to less effective techniques. Steep turns are an excellent maneuver to practice and experiment with this orientation to flying. At a safe altitude, no misstep should turn into a safety-of-flight issue, and we are less constrained by other limitations on our freedom to experiment. Practice under the supervision of a qualified CFI when changing anything in your usual flight procedures.

Charles B. McDougal is a corporate pilot and designated pilot examiner who lives in San Antonio, Texas.