flaps

[Kobra[_4_]]

Aviators,

My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed
until Sunday.

On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming out
of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.

The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
picked up a tailwind.

I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp.

On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened.
Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on landing
and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely or
unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I notice
that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change pitch or
that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I just didn't
catch the fact that no flaps came out.

Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he used
a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane without
the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.

I took off and started to ponder the situation:

No flaps
No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
way could you see more than 3 miles)
No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on landing)
and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with my
primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
during the day with a headwind.

Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway off
19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was so
high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible.

I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted to
come in as flat as possible.

Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
looking?

I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.

Kobra

[Aluckyguess]

I land without flaps all the time when I am buy my self. I think I land
smother. I have done this in my Cherokee 180, BE 35, A36 and a skipper I
trained in for a short time.
"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
> Aviators,
>
> My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed
> until Sunday.
>
> On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
> raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
> that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming
> out of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
> pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
> man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.
>
> The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
> heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
> picked up a tailwind.
>
> I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp.
>
> On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened.
> Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on
> landing and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely
> or unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I
> notice that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change
> pitch or that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I
> just didn't catch the fact that no flaps came out.
>
> Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
> things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he
> used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane
> without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.
>
> I took off and started to ponder the situation:
>
> No flaps
> No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
> way could you see more than 3 miles)
> No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
> No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on
> landing)
> and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with
> my primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
> during the day with a headwind.
>
> Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway
> off 19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was
> so high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible.
>
> I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted
> to come in as flat as possible.
>
> Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
> looking?
>
> I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.
>
> Kobra
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 9, 10:16 pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
> I land without flaps all the time when I am buy my self. I think I land
> smother. I have done this in my Cherokee 180, BE 35, A36 and a skipper I
> trained in for a short time."Kobra" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > Aviators,
>
> > My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed
> > until Sunday.
>
> > On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
> > raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
> > that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming
> > out of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
> > pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
> > man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.
>
> > The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
> > heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
> > picked up a tailwind.
>
> > I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp.
>
> > On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened.
> > Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on
> > landing and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely
> > or unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I
> > notice that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change
> > pitch or that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I
> > just didn't catch the fact that no flaps came out.
>
> > Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
> > things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he
> > used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane
> > without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.
>
> > I took off and started to ponder the situation:
>
> > No flaps
> > No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
> > way could you see more than 3 miles)
> > No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
> > No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on
> > landing)
> > and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with
> > my primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
> > during the day with a headwind.
>
> > Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway
> > off 19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was
> > so high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible.
>
> > I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted
> > to come in as flat as possible.
>
> > Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
> > looking?
>
> > I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.
>
> > Kobra- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

W/o flaps you will land in a more nose high attitude, which tends to
make for smoother landings, in my experience.
'
-Robert, CFII

[Ben Jackson]

On 2007-07-10, Kobra > wrote:
>
> On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
> raised the nose and pulled some power.

Right about here my brain started screaming, PUT THE GEAR DOWN!

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[kontiki]

Get a real A&P to check out the flap situation. If its
not the breaker it could be the flap motor (one of the
reasons I do like manual flaps).

As far as why you didn't notice that your flaps were
not working... well... that is disturbing. I notice
*every* little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in
my airplane.

I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short
field.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Ben Jackson" wrote:

>>
>> On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
>> raised the nose and pulled some power.
>
> Right about here my brain started screaming, PUT THE GEAR DOWN!

LOL! Same here.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Roy Smith]

"Kobra" > wrote:
> On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
> raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
> that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming out
> of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
> pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
> man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.

Then you should have gone around. Plan every approach to be a go-around,
and only make the decision to land when you get to the threshold and
everything is good.

10 kts too fast over the threshold is pretty significant. I don't fly the
177RG, but I found a checklist on the net that lists normal landing speeds
at 60-70 kts and Vfe (top of the white arc, which is what you said you were
doing on final) as 95. That's 25-35 kts too fast to land. I'm amazed you
managed to get it stopped in 3000 feet. In fact, I can't believe you were
really going that fast over the threshold, it's just not possible.

> The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
> heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
> picked up a tailwind.

A tailwind will increase your groundspeed, but not your airspeed.

> Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
> things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he used
> a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane without
> the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.

From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken, the
plane was not airworthy. From a safety point of view, however, I'd say you
did the right thing by consulting a mechanic to get an experienced opinion.
Technically, you needed a ferry permit to take off again, and your mechanic
using the p-word on the phone doesn't quite qualify. But I digress.

> I took off and started to ponder the situation:

The pondering should have happened before you took off. Once you're in the
air, you can ponder all you want, but you still need to land the airplane.

> No flaps
> No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
> way could you see more than 3 miles)
> No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
> No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on landing)
> and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with my
> primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
> during the day with a headwind.

From a pure performance point of view, your mechanic was right. With
proper technique, landing a 177RG on 3500 feet without flaps and zero wind
should be a no-brainer. Even on a hot a muggy summer day like it was this
weekend, there's plenty of performance margin to make it a non-event if you
know how to do it.

But, at night, in poor visibility, with no landing light to help you judge
your height above the runway, and having never practiced them seems like
the wrong time to be learning. None of these things are serious by
themselves, but it sounds like it all adds up to a case of get-home-itis to
me.

> I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted to
> come in as flat as possible.

That sounds like a good decision.

> Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
> looking?

Piper and Cessna took interesting divergent paths when they designed their
airplanes. Piper decided they were going to use electric trim and manual
flaps. Cessna decided on electric flaps and manual trim. In both cases,
each manufacturer added one totally unnecessary electric system and thus
saddled their owners with forever pouring money into fixing them. Maybe
the high-wing design made it difficult to engineer a manual flap control
linkage? In any case, if it's not the breaker, if could be the actuator
switch, the motor, one of the micro-switches that limit movement, or any of
the wiring in between. Just bring it to your mechanic with your checkbook
and let him put another kid through college :-)

> I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.

Indeed. If you fly something with electric flaps where flap failures are a
way of life, maybe a lot more often than that. With practice, no-flaps
landings in a 177 should be a piece of cake. Slips help, so practice those
too.

[texasflyer]

On Jul 10, 6:22 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Ben Jackson" wrote:
>
> >> On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
> >> raised the nose and pulled some power.
>
> > Right about here my brain started screaming, PUT THE GEAR DOWN!
>
> LOL! Same here.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM

My brain would've been screaming: GO AROUND! GO AROUND!

[Tina]

It also seems you planned a nighttime arrivial with a known burned out
landing light.

Little mistakes have a way of compounding themselves. You may want to
sit in a quiet place and think about your go - no go criteria for a
while. The two best outcomes of all of this is you made a safe trip,
and you have an opportunigy to make future trips safer.

[Longworth[_1_]]

Kobra,
I have not flown a C177RG but have often practiced landings with
different flap configurations in my C177B. Being 5'2", it is
impossible for me to see over the cowling when landing with no flaps
in a Cardinal. I have to rely on peripheral vision for such landings.
We had problem with our flaps once but it was the opposite with the
flaps stuck at 10 degrees position. As I recalled, it was a broken
wire inside the plane. The switches in the wings were OK. You can do
a search for flap problem in the Cardinal Flyers Virtual Digest. The
Tech section also have some information on flaps.

Hai Longworth

[[email protected]]

On Jul 10, 6:51 am, Roy Smith > wrote:

>
> Then you should have gone around. Plan every approach to be a go-around,
> and only make the decision to land when you get to the threshold and
> everything is good.

Exactly. Most landing accidents happen when things aren't
coming together properly and the pilot insists on landing anyway. If
this runway had been icy he'd likely have written the airplane off.

> Piper and Cessna took interesting divergent paths when they designed their
> airplanes. Piper decided they were going to use electric trim and manual
> flaps. Cessna decided on electric flaps and manual trim. In both cases,
> each manufacturer added one totally unnecessary electric system and thus
> saddled their owners with forever pouring money into fixing them. Maybe
> the high-wing design made it difficult to engineer a manual flap control
> linkage?

Cessna originally built their singles with manual flaps.
The 172 didn't get electric flaps until around 1967. The 180/185 never
had them. Those airplanes could be landed really short, because the
pilot could approach at minimum airspeed and dump the flaps instantly
on touchdown and get lots of weight on the mains for braking. Electric
flaps are too slow to retract.

>In any case, if it's not the breaker, if could be the actuator
> switch, the motor, one of the micro-switches that limit movement, or any of
> the wiring in between. Just bring it to your mechanic with your checkbook
> and let him put another kid through college :-)

If It's what I think and the airplane has the preselector-type
flap control, one of the microswitches on the lever follower is dead
or disconnected. They do that.

Dan

[Al G[_2_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Kobra" > wrote:

snip
>
> From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken,
> the
> plane was not airworthy.

Cite?

Al G

[Bob Gardner]

IMHO, full flaps are called for on a normal landing...it is only when gusts
or crosswinds raise their ugly heads that lesse deflections should be used.
The goal is minimum speed at touchdown, and you are depriving yourself of a
huge energy sink.

Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

Bob Gardner

"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
> Aviators,
>
> My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed
> until Sunday.
>
> On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
> raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
> that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming
> out of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
> pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
> man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.
>
> The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
> heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
> picked up a tailwind.
>
> I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp.
>
> On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened.
> Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on
> landing and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely
> or unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I
> notice that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change
> pitch or that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I
> just didn't catch the fact that no flaps came out.
>
> Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
> things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he
> used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane
> without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.
>
> I took off and started to ponder the situation:
>
> No flaps
> No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
> way could you see more than 3 miles)
> No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
> No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on
> landing)
> and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with
> my primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
> during the day with a headwind.
>
> Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway
> off 19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was
> so high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible.
>
> I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted
> to come in as flat as possible.
>
> Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
> looking?
>
> I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.
>
> Kobra
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:43:10 +0000, kontiki wrote:

> I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short field.

Why? Unless I've some reason to do otherwise, I'll make every landing as
slow and short (and precisely where I want to touch down) as possible.
It's all good practice, and the slow part is being gentle on the airplane.

I'll often only drop the full flaps on very short final, as I dislike
dragging it in. But they're all the way down when I'm landing.

Of course, now that I think on it, I've only 30 degrees of flaps.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:06:54 -0700, Dan_Thomas_nospam wrote:

> Exactly. Most landing accidents happen when things aren't
> coming together properly and the pilot insists on landing anyway. If this
> runway had been icy he'd likely have written the airplane off.

I landed last week at CQX, a runway that (I've learned {8^) has a hump in
the middle. As I was coming down, I suddenly realized that I'd far less
runway than I thought I should have had. I probably could have put it
down in the remaining distance, but around I went.

As soon as I started climbing, the rest of the runway - hiding behind the
hump - came into view. I did feel a little silly, but I also welcomed the
practice.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

On Jul 10, 10:00 am, "Al G" > wrote:
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Kobra" > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken,
> > the
> > plane was not airworthy.
>
> Cite?
>
> Al G
For Americans:

Sec. 91.7

Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an
airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

For Canadians:

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General

605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and
605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has
equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been
removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is
affected.

(2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a
take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or
from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated
in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been
issued specifically for that purpose.

See, both systems leave it up to the pilot to determine
airworthiness. But the Inspector's opinion may differ considerably
from the pilot's, and legal trouble may arise. I know of plenty of
pilots who would fly an airplane that I wouldn't, mostly because I'm
older, have been doing this for enough years, and have had a couple of
engine failures and some systems failures. A flap system failure, for
instance, might leave you with retracted flaps; you take off, get to
the destination, forget that the flaps don't work or decide to see if
they're now working, and find that they extend. Good. Now the approach
gets botched up or someone taxis out in front of you and so you go
around, finding now that the flaps won't retract and you can't climb.
Now what? Was aviation saftey affected? The accident will prove it.
These electric flaps can do this; they've done it to our 172s. When
they give the first hint of trouble the airplane is grounded.

Dan

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Jul 10, 9:37 am, Tina > wrote:
> It also seems you planned a nighttime arrivial with a known burned out
> landing light.
>
Tina,
My understanding is that landing night is not a requirement for non
commerical flight

==============
Sec. 91.205 & 91.507
Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
.............................
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
==============
During my training, my instructor had me landed with and without
landing light at night. I actually found it was easier to land
without landing light.

> Little mistakes have a way of compounding themselves. You may want to
> sit in a quiet place and think about your go - no go criteria for a
> while. The two best outcomes of all of this is you made a safe trip,
> and you have an opportunigy to make future trips safer.

Although I generally agree with your statement. I find your
comments to be somewhat condescending. I do not know Kobra
personally but I have read quite a few of his postings. He is an
experienced pilot who is always willing to share his experience be it
good or bad for all of us, pilots, to learn. I don't think that he
needs to be told 'to sit in a quiet place and think....' !


Hai Longworth

[Jay Honeck]

> Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.

When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
"practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.

This post, IMHO, above all else, is a real tribute to the utility of
manual, Johnson-bar flap actuators. Hard to miss when THOSE don't
work.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kobra[_3_]]

> airworthy condition.
> (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
> determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.

Exercising my PIC privilege, I guess I determined that the aircraft was
airworthy.

Roy Smith wrote:
>10 kts too fast over the threshold is pretty significant. I don't fly the
>177RG, but I found a checklist on the net that lists normal landing speeds
>a>t 60-70 kts and Vfe (top of the white arc, which is what you said you
>were
>doing on final) as 95. That's 25-35 kts too fast to land. I'm amazed you
>managed to get it stopped in 3000 feet. In fact, I can't believe you were
>really going that fast over the threshold, it's just not possible.

I probably wasn't going that fast (95 KIAS). By the time I reached the
threshold I was trimming the nose up and had the power at idle. I was
probably at 90 MPH or 77 KIAS at that point. Normally I cross the fence at
70 MPH or 61 KIAS.

Roy Smith wrote:
>Then you should have gone around. Plan every approach to be a go-around,
>and only make the decision to land when you get to the threshold and
>everything is good

I was very ready to go-around, but the plane touched down well and I knew
from the remaining distance that heavy braking would stop the plane in time.
I landed on 31 and exited off on the second to last exit. It appears from
the diagram that I had over a 1000 feet remaining. The runway is actually
3204 feet, so it wasn't as short as I first described.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0707/06425VGB.PDF

Roy Smith wrote:
>The pondering should have happened before you took off.


Roy, what you said is very true! I am embarrassed about two things. One
that I didn't notice the flaps didn't come down at JGG. If I ever read
someone else's account of this and they said they didn't know the flaps
stayed up I would have thought they were brain dead and should never be
behind a yoke again. But let me tell you...it can happen. If you're busy
talking to traffic, looking for traffic, watching the two planes ready to
take the runway, configuring the airplane for landing, doing your before
landing checklist, flying the plane, etc. It can happen. Especially after
750 hours and setting the flaps in increments about 1200 times with never so
much as a hiccup, one can become easily complacent. So, please no 'holier
than thou' comments, such as Kontiki posted.
kontiki wrote:
>As far as why you didn't notice that your flaps were
>not working... well... that is disturbing. I notice
>*every* little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in
>my airplane.
You better knock wood. You speak boldly my friend, and if I might add, a
little cocky. Cocky is disturbing and kills more pilots, I'm sure, than not
noticing flap deployment. If *I* can teach *you* anything, it's that you
CAN miss a little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in your airplane.

Kobra

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 10, 10:00 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > "Kobra" > wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> > From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken,
>> > the
>> > plane was not airworthy.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> Al G
> For Americans:
>
> Sec. 91.7
>
> Civil aircraft airworthiness.
>
> (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an
> airworthy condition.
> (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
> determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
> pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
> mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
>
> For Canadians:
>
> Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General
>
> 605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and
> 605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has
> equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been
> removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is
> affected.
>
> (2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a
> take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or
> from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated
> in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been
> issued specifically for that purpose.
>
> See, both systems leave it up to the pilot to determine
> airworthiness. But the Inspector's opinion may differ considerably
> from the pilot's, and legal trouble may arise. I know of plenty of
> pilots who would fly an airplane that I wouldn't, mostly because I'm
> older, have been doing this for enough years, and have had a couple of
> engine failures and some systems failures. A flap system failure, for
> instance, might leave you with retracted flaps; you take off, get to
> the destination, forget that the flaps don't work or decide to see if
> they're now working, and find that they extend. Good. Now the approach
> gets botched up or someone taxis out in front of you and so you go
> around, finding now that the flaps won't retract and you can't climb.
> Now what? Was aviation saftey affected? The accident will prove it.
> These electric flaps can do this; they've done it to our 172s. When
> they give the first hint of trouble the airplane is grounded.
>
> Dan
>
>

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Jul 10, 3:38 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.
>
> It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
> airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
> speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.
>
> When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
> cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
> "practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
> and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
> the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.
>

Jay,
I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every
so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow
flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have
the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no
ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane.
IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin
someday and no amount of money is worth my life.

Hai Longworth

[Tina]

I agree, it is not, so long as it is not a 'for hire' flight.

Never the less, one might want to review the decision to make a flight
with an airplane that has to be landed in an unfamiliar confirguration
at night without a landing light.

I'm speaking as a non pilot here, so my concerns might be unfounded.

> Tina,
> My understanding is that landing night is not a requirement for non
> commerical flight
>
> ==============

[Jay Honeck]

> I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every
> so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow
> flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have
> the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no
> ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane.
> IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin
> someday and no amount of money is worth my life.

Oh, we practice all the other stuff -- but short-short-short field
landings are NOT one of them. Botching a power-off, let's-plant-it-on-
the-numbers landing is just too potentially expensive, since Atlas'
nose will slam down like Thor's hammer if you let him get too slow.

Which isn't to say we shy away from short fields. We routinely fly
into 2200 foot grass strips, so we're fairly proficient at it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Al G[_2_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 10, 10:00 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > "Kobra" > wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> > From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken,
>> > the
>> > plane was not airworthy.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> Al G
> For Americans:
>
> Sec. 91.7
>
> Civil aircraft airworthiness.
>
> (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an
> airworthy condition.
> (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
> determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
> pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
> mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
>
> For Canadians:
snip...
>
> See, both systems leave it up to the pilot to determine
> airworthiness. But the Inspector's opinion may differ considerably
> from the pilot's, and legal trouble may arise. I know of plenty of
> pilots who would fly an airplane that I wouldn't, mostly because I'm
> older, have been doing this for enough years, and have had a couple of
> engine failures and some systems failures. A flap system failure, for
> instance, might leave you with retracted flaps; you take off, get to
> the destination, forget that the flaps don't work or decide to see if
> they're now working, and find that they extend. Good. Now the approach
> gets botched up or someone taxis out in front of you and so you go
> around, finding now that the flaps won't retract and you can't climb.
> Now what? Was aviation saftey affected? The accident will prove it.
> These electric flaps can do this; they've done it to our 172s. When
> they give the first hint of trouble the airplane is grounded.
>
> Dan
>
>

Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy.
This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for
takeoff, optional for landing, and not used enroute. Now if it were a
Lear...

Al G CFIAMI 2069297

[Blueskies]

"kontiki" > wrote in message ...
> Get a real A&P to check out the flap situation. If its
> not the breaker it could be the flap motor (one of the
> reasons I do like manual flaps).
>
> As far as why you didn't notice that your flaps were
> not working... well... that is disturbing. I notice
> *every* little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in
> my airplane.
>
> I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short
> field.

Why are you beating up the plane?

I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was an 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a
landing configuration and the performance in the book is based on that configuration...

It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.

[Longworth[_1_]]

> Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
> aircraft un-airworthy.
> This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
> runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for
>
Al,
I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft
unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps
stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who
was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice
landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping
to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps.

Hai Longworth

[Hilton]

Al G wrote:
> Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
> aircraft un-airworthy.
> This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
> runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for
> takeoff, optional for landing, and not used enroute. Now if it were a
> Lear...

Define "airworthy"; hint it does not mean "flyable". Ask Roy Smith about an
'energetic' FAA inspector.

Hilton

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:16 -0700, Longworth
> wrote:

>> Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
>> aircraft un-airworthy.
>> This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
>> runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for
>>
> Al,
> I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft
>unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps
>stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who
>was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice
>landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping
>to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps.

FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....

[Matt Whiting]

Kobra wrote:

> Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
> things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he used
> a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane without
> the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.

He called you a pimp? :-) :-)


> Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
> looking?

A failed switch. A burned out flap motor. Etc.


> I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.

No flap landings are really non-events. You got way too worked up over
it. I'm also surprised that you kept ignoring all of the signs that the
flaps were inop. This is a good lesson though and one that didn't cause
you any harm and one that you will long remember. Whenever things feel
different, find out why ... don't just keep plodding along.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.
>
> It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
> airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
> speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.
>
> When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
> cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
> "practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
> and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
> the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.

I believe my 182 had a similarly sized engine to your Piper and I always
landed as close to full-stall as I could get. If you do it all the
time, then you get to where it works pretty much all the time. And
landing this way SAVES on tires and brakes and, done properly, has no
affect on struts, firewalls, prop or engine.


> This post, IMHO, above all else, is a real tribute to the utility of
> manual, Johnson-bar flap actuators. Hard to miss when THOSE don't
> work.

It is hard to miss Cessna flaps either. I have to admit to wondering
where Kobra mind was during that landing. Full flaps in any Cessna I've
flown is simply hard to ignore, but I haven't flown a 177.

Matt

[Al G[_2_]]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:16 -0700, Longworth
> > wrote:
>
>>> Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
>>> aircraft un-airworthy.
>>> This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself
>>> to
>>> runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for
>>>
>> Al,
>> I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft
>>unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps
>>stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who
>>was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice
>>landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping
>>to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps.
>
> FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
> system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
> correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
> without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....

I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a
steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist they
work. The 182 is also a bit heavier
than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is
left to me to decide,
and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not as
intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent without
flaps, and would do it again.

KOEL=??

As a 135 pilot I had a MEL(Minimum Equipt List) for each multi-engine
aircraft I flew. I don't believe there is such a thing for a part 91 single
engine pilot. In most cases, if something were inoperative, that imposed
limits on your flight, but did not cancel the flight. I would not consider
the failure of a light bulb to be an airworthiness item, unless night flight
was planned.
What if your comm radio was inoperative? Non-airworthy? Many aircraft
have no radio, just like many aircraft have no flaps.

Al G

[kontiki]

Blueskies wrote:

>
> Why are you beating up the plane?
>
> I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was an 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a
> landing configuration and the performance in the book is based on that configuration...
>
> It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.
>
>

Beating up my plane? Have you ever flown a Comanche? All you
need is 20 degrees for smooth and graceful landings in a PA24.
If I'm going into a really short field (2000 feet?) then I'll
use full flaps.

All the 182's I've ever flown only need 20 degrees of flap
for nice landings too. Go full flaps and its like an anvil
with a parachute. The 182 is a great short field airplane.

[Hilton]

Al G wrote:
> Never the less, it is left to me to decide,
> and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO.

It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're
missing that point.

Hilton

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0700, "Al G" >
wrote:

>>
>> FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
>> system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
>> correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
>> without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....
>
>I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a
>steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist they
>work. The 182 is also a bit heavier
>than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is
>left to me to decide,
>and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not as
>intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent without
>flaps, and would do it again.
>
>KOEL=??

Kinds Of Operations Equipment List. It's contained in Section 2 of
the POH (AKA Operating Limits) and is prefaced:

"The Cessna 182T Nav III airplane is approved for day and night, VFR
and IFR operations. Flight into known-icing conditions is prohibited.

The minimum equipment for approved operatons required under the
Operating Rules are defined by 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 135, as
applicable.

The following Kinds of Operations Equipment List (KOEL) identifies the
equipment required to be operational for airplane airworthiness in the
listed kind of operations."

Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have
stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older
aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL).
The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones
(and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a
POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as
required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be
working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation.
The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft
with a MEL or KOEL.

[Al G[_2_]]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
t...
> Al G wrote:
>> Never the less, it is left to me to decide,
>> and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO.
>
> It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're
> missing that point.
>
> Hilton
>

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur

Nothing in the "regs" says I have to use flaps in a C172.

Al G

[Al G[_2_]]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0700, "Al G" >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
>>> system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
>>> correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
>>> without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....
>>
>>I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a
>>steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist
>>they
>>work. The 182 is also a bit heavier
>>than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is
>>left to me to decide,
>>and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not
>>as
>>intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent
>>without
>>flaps, and would do it again.
>>
>>KOEL=??
>
> Kinds Of Operations Equipment List. It's contained in Section 2 of
> the POH (AKA Operating Limits) and is prefaced:
>
> "The Cessna 182T Nav III airplane is approved for day and night, VFR
> and IFR operations. Flight into known-icing conditions is prohibited.
>
> The minimum equipment for approved operatons required under the
> Operating Rules are defined by 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 135, as
> applicable.
>
> The following Kinds of Operations Equipment List (KOEL) identifies the
> equipment required to be operational for airplane airworthiness in the
> listed kind of operations."
>
> Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have
> stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older
> aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL).
> The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones
> (and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a
> POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as
> required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be
> working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation.
> The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft
> with a MEL or KOEL.

So if the flap switch is inop, you're good to go?

Al G

[Blueskies]

"kontiki" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>>
>> Why are you beating up the plane?
>>
>> I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was an 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a
>> landing configuration and the performance in the book is based on that configuration...
>>
>> It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.
>
> Beating up my plane? Have you ever flown a Comanche? All you
> need is 20 degrees for smooth and graceful landings in a PA24.
> If I'm going into a really short field (2000 feet?) then I'll
> use full flaps.
>
> All the 182's I've ever flown only need 20 degrees of flap
> for nice landings too. Go full flaps and its like an anvil
> with a parachute. The 182 is a great short field airplane.

So, what is the expected landing performance for the Comanche, landing with 20° flaps?

Tires and brakes at least are taking more than they need to. Wheel bearings too. Struts and oleos thumping over the
expansion joints, etc...

Always landed the PA32-300 with full flaps, nice and slow. And that was in HI with screwy cross winds pretty much always
blowing 15-20 knots.

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:40:28 -0700, "Al G" >
wrote:

>>
>> Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have
>> stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older
>> aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL).
>> The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones
>> (and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a
>> POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as
>> required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be
>> working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation.
>> The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft
>> with a MEL or KOEL.
>
> So if the flap switch is inop, you're good to go?

If you can somehow prove it's the switch and not the motor without
being an A&P and re-rigging the electrical wiring to show the motor
and indicator are both working, I guess. The intent of the limitation
- flaps have to be working - is obvious. They don't say you have to
actually use them, but they do have to be in working order.

[Matt Whiting]

kontiki wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>>
>> Why are you beating up the plane?
>>
>> I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was
>> an 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a landing configuration and
>> the performance in the book is based on that configuration...
>>
>> It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.
>>
>
> Beating up my plane? Have you ever flown a Comanche? All you
> need is 20 degrees for smooth and graceful landings in a PA24.
> If I'm going into a really short field (2000 feet?) then I'll
> use full flaps.
>
> All the 182's I've ever flown only need 20 degrees of flap
> for nice landings too. Go full flaps and its like an anvil
> with a parachute. The 182 is a great short field airplane.

I can make nice landings with 0 or 40 degrees of flaps. The flaps don't
land the airplane.

A 182 with full flaps still glides just fine. The Arrow I now fly which
has a 3-blade prop is much worse than my 182 in the glide ratio
department. I can barely make a 180 power-off landing with it. You
have to turn base as soon as you cut power abeam the landing spot or
you'll never make it!

Matt

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> The Arrow I now fly which has a 3-blade prop is much worse than my 182 in
> the glide ratio department. I can barely make a 180 power-off landing with
> it. You have to turn base as soon as you cut power abeam the landing spot
> or you'll never make it!

As a CFI giving me a checkout in an Arrow put it: "You can cut the power and
glide a Cessna in, but a Piper comes down like dropped car keys."

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>> The Arrow I now fly which has a 3-blade prop is much worse than my 182 in
>> the glide ratio department. I can barely make a 180 power-off landing with
>> it. You have to turn base as soon as you cut power abeam the landing spot
>> or you'll never make it!
>
> As a CFI giving me a checkout in an Arrow put it: "You can cut the power and
> glide a Cessna in, but a Piper comes down like dropped car keys."
>

The Arrow wasn't all that bad with the original two-blade prop. But
when the hub failed inspection requiring prop replacement, a decision
was made to go with the 3-blade as it was cheaper (go figure). What a
mistake. The 3-blade vibrates much more, doesn't perform any better on
takeoff, climb or cruise, and performs MUCH worse during glide.

Matt

[Kobra[_3_]]

> It is hard to miss Cessna flaps either. I have to admit to wondering
> where Kobra mind was during that landing. Full flaps in any Cessna I've
> flown is simply hard to ignore, but I haven't flown a 177.

Matt,

Yes, you are correct, when the flaps DO deploy it is noticeable. The flaps
on the 177 are large and effective. It's when they DON'T deploy that it can
get past you unnoticed in a busy cockpit. How many times have you flow a
Cessna that the flaps failed to set? Probably never. So most of the
readers here have no idea how they would or wouldn't notice the failure.

If I was a CFI I think I might occasionally pull the flap breaker and see
how many students catch the situation and at what point.

AAMOF I will throw that out there to the CFI's...let's do an experiment.
Pull the breaker when the student isn't looking and have them fly the
pattern for a landing. Post the results on how many did and didn't
understand the problem. If they catch it, at what point did they realize
that no flaps were out? I'd be interested in the results.

Post the results here under this post "flaps".

Kobra

[Roy Smith]

Peter Clark > wrote:
> The intent of the limitation - flaps have to be working - is obvious.
> They don't say you have to actually use them, but they do have to be in
> working order.

There is some logic in this. All the Cessna AFMs I've seen (i.e. for
various flavors of their piston singles) have nice detailed performance
charts showing how much runway you need to land with various combinations
of weight, temperature, elevation, wind, and phase of moon, but the numbers
always are for full flaps. There is NO data on how much runway you need
without flaps, therefor there is no way you can comply with 91.103 which
requires that you familiarize yourself with the takeoff and landing
distances.

Now, you know, and I know, and every body hanging out in the airport coffee
shop knows that you can land a 172 with no flaps on a 2000 foot paved
runway without any problems (assuming you know what you're doing). But,
that doesn't count when it comes to determining if the airplane is
airworthy. Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more,
nothing less.

[Matt Whiting]

Kobra wrote:
>> It is hard to miss Cessna flaps either. I have to admit to wondering
>> where Kobra mind was during that landing. Full flaps in any Cessna I've
>> flown is simply hard to ignore, but I haven't flown a 177.
>
> Matt,
>
> Yes, you are correct, when the flaps DO deploy it is noticeable. The flaps
> on the 177 are large and effective. It's when they DON'T deploy that it can
> get past you unnoticed in a busy cockpit. How many times have you flow a
> Cessna that the flaps failed to set? Probably never. So most of the
> readers here have no idea how they would or wouldn't notice the failure.

Just once, but I noticed it instantly, and I was already pretty busy
flying an instrument approach into OSH of all places after having lost
my alternator. When I noticed the alternator light come on about 20
miles out, I turned off everything but one navcomm and the transponder.
However, once on short final, the old habit kicked in and I put the
flaps down even though I was on battery power alone at that point. The
flaps made it about 5 degrees before the battery gave up the ghost
completely. I said "crap" and then proceeded to land the airplane. No
big deal and it was instantly obvious that the flaps hadn't deployed
even with my mind a little preoccupied.

Matt

[Roy Smith]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Just once, but I noticed it instantly, and I was already pretty busy
> flying an instrument approach into OSH of all places after having lost
> my alternator. When I noticed the alternator light come on about 20
> miles out, I turned off everything but one navcomm and the transponder.
> However, once on short final, the old habit kicked in and I put the
> flaps down even though I was on battery power alone at that point.

It's amazing how that works, isn't it?

Years ago, when I was working on my instrument rating, my instructor and I
had just taken off on a night IFR flight and were having trouble checking
in with NY Departure. The radio's were scratchy and they weren't getting
our xponder, when we noticed the panel lights dim. We told NY we were
returning home.

On the short flight there, we discussed the idea that we might have enough
battery to get the flaps down and not enough to get them back up if we
needed to go around. We decided to do a no-flap landing.

Exactly the same thing happened that you described -- habit kicked in and
without even realizing what I was doing, I reached out and put the first 10
degrees of flaps in on downwind. It's just hard to break the habit.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:43:10 +0000, kontiki wrote:
>
>> I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short field.
>
> Why? Unless I've some reason to do otherwise, I'll make every landing as
> slow and short (and precisely where I want to touch down) as possible.
> It's all good practice, and the slow part is being gentle on the airplane.
>
> I'll often only drop the full flaps on very short final, as I dislike
> dragging it in. But they're all the way down when I'm landing.
>
> Of course, now that I think on it, I've only 30 degrees of flaps.
>
> - Andrew
>

What I don't understand is how the original poster didn't notice there was
no pitch change or re-trim required following application of the missing
flaps. It is almost 2nd nature to reach for the trim wheel right after
selecting flaps in a Cessna so why didn't the poster notice that he didn't
need to retrim?


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Longworth" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 10, 9:37 am, Tina > wrote:
>> It also seems you planned a nighttime arrivial with a known burned out
>> landing light.
>>
> Tina,
> My understanding is that landing night is not a requirement for non
> commerical flight
>
> ==============
> Sec. 91.205 & 91.507
> Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
> certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
> ............................
> (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
> ==============
> During my training, my instructor had me landed with and without
> landing light at night. I actually found it was easier to land
> without landing light.
>
>> Little mistakes have a way of compounding themselves. You may want to
>> sit in a quiet place and think about your go - no go criteria for a
>> while. The two best outcomes of all of this is you made a safe trip,
>> and you have an opportunigy to make future trips safer.
>
> Although I generally agree with your statement. I find your
> comments to be somewhat condescending. I do not know Kobra
> personally but I have read quite a few of his postings. He is an
> experienced pilot who is always willing to share his experience be it
> good or bad for all of us, pilots, to learn. I don't think that he
> needs to be told 'to sit in a quiet place and think....' !
>
>
> Hai Longworth
>
>
I agree with Tina, at least about re-thinking the sequence of risky
decisions that were made. The landing light was only one of those decisions.
The failure to notice trim adjustments not being required while extending
flaps, the failure to push the go-up lever and reconsider the approach, etc
are all risky decisions. Tina was pointing out that this flight was a series
of those events. It is ironic that the AOPAs Flight Safety Foundation
program this year is focused on breaking the chain of events (bad decisions)
that lead up to accidents. Kobra was skilled enough to force the final
result, but he kept throwing away his safety options along the way. Things
could have turned out much differently, and then we'd all be berating the
press for its one-sided coverage of another mishap; but that's another
thread...

Most likely your instructor had you land without the landing light as a
non-standard event that would be possible if the light burnt out while in
flight. I seriously doubt that an instructor would encourage any student or
pilot for that matter to intentionally depart for a flight after dark
knowing the landing light was inop.

I'm also willing to bet that most instructors teach students how to
go-around in the event the landing doesn't look or feel right, which Kobra
noted was the case here.

Nothing about this chain of events should be construed to be normal
practice. Tina is correct that we can all learn from this example of how
events get strung together and can lead up to a very risky situation.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Marty Shapiro]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> Peter Clark > wrote:
>> The intent of the limitation - flaps have to be working - is obvious.
>> They don't say you have to actually use them, but they do have to be
>> in working order.
>
> There is some logic in this. All the Cessna AFMs I've seen (i.e. for
> various flavors of their piston singles) have nice detailed
> performance charts showing how much runway you need to land with
> various combinations of weight, temperature, elevation, wind, and
> phase of moon, but the numbers always are for full flaps. There is NO
> data on how much runway you need without flaps, therefor there is no
> way you can comply with 91.103 which requires that you familiarize
> yourself with the takeoff and landing distances.
>
> Now, you know, and I know, and every body hanging out in the airport
> coffee shop knows that you can land a 172 with no flaps on a 2000 foot
> paved runway without any problems (assuming you know what you're
> doing). But, that doesn't count when it comes to determining if the
> airplane is airworthy. Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork,
> nothing more, nothing less.
>

The POH for the 1977 C172N Skyhawk (D1082-13-RPC-1000-9/89) has
exactly one landing table, on page 5-21, marked "Short Field". This table
ONLY shows landing distance based on max weight of 2300 lbs. In Section 4
"Normal Procedures" on page 4-19, under "Normal Landing", the POH states
"Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any
flap setting desired."

An interpretation of 91.103 requiring that you know how much runway
you need to land or your not airworthy combined with the information
provided in this POH implies that you can never legally land a 1977 C172N
uless you are at max weight, doing a short field landing, full flaps, and
have the capability of inflight refueling (or some other means of ensuring
fuel burn doesn't reduce your weight below max) during the landing!

I guess no one has ever landed an airworthy 1977 C172N!


--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clark > wrote:
>> The intent of the limitation - flaps have to be working - is obvious.
>> They don't say you have to actually use them, but they do have to be in
>> working order.
>
> There is some logic in this. All the Cessna AFMs I've seen (i.e. for
> various flavors of their piston singles) have nice detailed performance
> charts showing how much runway you need to land with various combinations
> of weight, temperature, elevation, wind, and phase of moon, but the
> numbers
> always are for full flaps. There is NO data on how much runway you need
> without flaps, therefor there is no way you can comply with 91.103 which
> requires that you familiarize yourself with the takeoff and landing
> distances.
>
> Now, you know, and I know, and every body hanging out in the airport
> coffee
> shop knows that you can land a 172 with no flaps on a 2000 foot paved
> runway without any problems (assuming you know what you're doing). But,
> that doesn't count when it comes to determining if the airplane is
> airworthy. Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more,
> nothing less.

Since the '60s, '70s, and '80s models showed no flap landing data, and flaps
were considered optional this question really boils down to what the POH
says for the particular aircraft being flown. Students learning at busy
commercial airports almost never used flaps as a normal procedure.

Of course we taught recovery from fully developed spins to instructors back
then also. Isn't it interesting that some modern aircraft could be
considered out-of-service for inop flaps, but only a few years ago they were
very optional. I imagine that today a DER or FSDO inspector would have a
stroke if we used all 60 degrees we had on the old O-1s or rolled on a wheel
landing with them at zero.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> IMHO, full flaps are called for on a normal landing...it is only when
> gusts or crosswinds raise their ugly heads that lesse deflections should
> be used. The goal is minimum speed at touchdown, and you are depriving
> yourself of a huge energy sink.
>
> Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
>

....but not in front of American, or Delta, or any of the others that need
100+ knots across the fence.

There are way too many folks taking an absolute position on this topic.
Flaps or no flaps depends on a whole lot of variables with wind being only
one of them.

Kobra however was intending on making a partial flap landing that was going
in the ditch, but he didn't catch the clues until later. That's the point we
should take away from this story.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[BT]

> Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
> things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he
> used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane
> without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.
>
> I took off and started to ponder the situation:

I would fire that mechanic and never take my aircraft back to him. He talked
you into flying an aircraft with a known problem that was un resolved. You
had no idea why the flaps did not work, the "breaker was not popped" so you
had no idea if the problem was electrical and if it could impact the rest of
the aircrafts electrical system. You knowingly had problems in the traffic
pattern and landing because you did not know the flaps were not working, and
yet you took off on a night cross country in marginal weather to a
relatively short runway based on your mechanic calling you a "wimp".

A Cessna 310 just crashed into a house in Florida with an on board fire
caused by an unknown ignition source.. was it electrical? Who knows, they
may find out or they may not.

Yes the aircraft can be flown safely without the use of flaps. Flaps were
disabled, are they required? The aircraft was certified with flaps. I had a
situation where the flaps failed in the extended position after landing. We
, read mechanic and I, determined it was the flap switch. With the aid of a
trusted mechanic, friend and FAA DAR and with the approval of the home
flight school where I rented the aircraft. we were able to bypass the
switch, and electrically charge the flap motor to raise the flaps. He
promptly issued a ferry permit to allow me to fly back to home station for
repairs to the flap switch with the flap motor circuit breaker pulled,
limited to day VMC, luckily I was alone on the trip as ferry permits
normally are single pilot no pax operations.

JMHO

BT

[Morgans[_2_]]

"BT" > wrote

> You knowingly had problems in the traffic pattern and landing because you did
> not know the flaps were not working, and yet you took off on a night cross
> country in marginal weather to a relatively short runway based on your
> mechanic calling you a "wimp".

Whoa, there. Facts are getting twisted.

The mechanic called him a wimp after the fact (of the unrecognized no flaps
landing) in reference to bringing the plane back home.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Kobra,

> He also said I was a complete wimp (he used
> a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane without
> the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.
>

He's damn right!

Seriously and without trying to offend or anything, I think your post reveals
a ton of problems.

First, the flaps. For a no-flaps landing you add maybe 5 knots to your
approach speed. That's less than a 10 percent increase in speed, which results
in less than a 20 percent increase in distance. From a quick google search, a
standard rollout for the 177RG is 730 feet, total distance over the 50 feet
obstacle is 1350 feet. With an additional 5 knots, if you come anywhere close
to a 3000 feet roll and require heavy breaking, as you describe, you REALLY
need to work on those landings (the normal ones, not even the short-field
variant). You should be able to stop in well under 1000 feet with no flaps
every time you try. Even giving any thought to a 3500 feet runway being a
problem indicates a serious problem with pilot training, IMHO.

As others have posted, this is just one of the many problems your post
indicates:

- You seem to have been WAY too fast on final. Yet you don't seem to have gone
through enough trouble-shooting to find the (rather obvious) cause. You didn't
go around with so many things not "going right", either.
- You seem to have little to no familiarity with your plane in slow flight,
especially without flaps.
- You seem to have more or less included in your planning the possibility of
flying at night, yet you let the landing light go unrepaired for a long time.
- You pondered the potential difficulties of your landing AFTER taking off,
IOW in the air.

IMHO, a serious re-evaluation of your decision-making process in connection
with piloting would be a very good idea.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Longworth wrote:
> I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every
> so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow
> flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have
> the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no
> ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane.
> IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin
> someday and no amount of money is worth my life.
>
> Hai Longworth
>

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Longworth[_1_]]

Roger,

I subcribed to NASA Callback and had filed a NASA report once
(eventhough everything I did in that flight was legal). I think the
very fact that a pilot filed a report or posted their experience
indicates that he/she had reflected on the event, learned a lesson
from it and wanted to share the experience with others to learn. I
don't think that any pilot could honesty say that he/she had never
made a bad decision or an error.

Kobra was surprised that he did not notice that the flaps were
inoperative. He called his mechanic. He pondered about the
situation. He advised others to go practice no-flap landings. He
certainly DID think enough about the incidence to post it here. He
might have even thought about it while sitting in a quiet corner ;-)

Everytime that I read a post about some bad events from a fellow
pilot, I always cringe in seeing reprimanding or scolding remarks from
the Monday morning quarrterback or armchair pilots. It's a good thing
the Callback site does not have a readers' feedback option!

I have flown for less than 7 years and have just a bit shy of
700hrs. I have learned a lot about flying, about safety, about my own
capability and limitation skillwise and judgementwise from other
pilots, from posts such as this one by Kobra. I am a very safety
minded flyer. I do my best not to fly when being stressed, tired. I
am very lucky to have a constant copilot to share the workload. I
fully sympathize with the single pilot especially single pilot
IFR. Flying can be very demanding. I can see myself making the
same errors as confessed by other pilots under similar circumstances.
I am grateful to learn from their mistakes. I do not want to see
people gets discouraged or afraid of posting their flying experience
for fear of criticism or condemnation.

Hai Longworth

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:21:15 +0000, Jim Carter wrote:

> It is almost 2nd nature to reach for the trim wheel right after
> selecting flaps in a Cessna so why didn't the poster notice that he didn't
> need to retrim?

Perhaps that - the "second nature" part - is exactly why it didn't
register.

I just did a flight review in our R182. Discussing gear use, the CFI
mentioned that during some training he did of someone once upon a time
there was some extended flight during which the gear horn was sounding (a
simulated engine failure). When it finally came time to land, the pilot
never put down the gear; he'd completely tuned out the sound.

Our brains are weird.

The CFI called a go around on that landing. The student went to pull the
gear up for the go around and only then realized that it was still up.
Despite the horn still doing it's <bleat> <bleat>.

- Andrew

[Al G[_2_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clark > wrote:
>> The intent of the limitation - flaps have to be working - is obvious.
>> They don't say you have to actually use them, but they do have to be in
>> working order.
>
> There is some logic in this. All the Cessna AFMs I've seen (i.e. for
> various flavors of their piston singles) have nice detailed performance
> charts showing how much runway you need to land with various combinations
> of weight, temperature, elevation, wind, and phase of moon, but the
> numbers
> always are for full flaps. There is NO data on how much runway you need
> without flaps, therefor there is no way you can comply with 91.103 which
> requires that you familiarize yourself with the takeoff and landing
> distances.
>
> Now, you know, and I know, and every body hanging out in the airport
> coffee
> shop knows that you can land a 172 with no flaps on a 2000 foot paved
> runway without any problems (assuming you know what you're doing). But,
> that doesn't count when it comes to determining if the airplane is
> airworthy.

Well said Roy. I can see Cessna adding it to the "Operating Limits",
after all the charts
for that aircraft using specify their use, hence the KOEL. The 1967 172H
manual I'm looking at has a single page limitations section, with no mention
of flaps. Just the Day/Night/VFR, with instruments, IFR, normal category.
The landing chart is a single line assuming short field over an obstacle,
with 40 degrees of flap.

> Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You
don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you?

Al G

[Al G[_2_]]

"Longworth" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Roger,
>
> I subcribed to NASA Callback and had filed a NASA report once
> (eventhough everything I did in that flight was legal). I think the
> very fact that a pilot filed a report or posted their experience
> indicates that he/she had reflected on the event, learned a lesson
> from it and wanted to share the experience with others to learn. I
> don't think that any pilot could honesty say that he/she had never
> made a bad decision or an error.
>
Amen.

Al G

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/11/07 07:01, Longworth wrote:

[ snip ]

>
> I have flown for less than 7 years and have just a bit shy of
> 700hrs. I have learned a lot about flying, about safety, about my own
> capability and limitation skillwise and judgementwise from other
> pilots, from posts such as this one by Kobra. I am a very safety
> minded flyer. I do my best not to fly when being stressed, tired. I
> am very lucky to have a constant copilot to share the workload. I
> fully sympathize with the single pilot especially single pilot
> IFR. Flying can be very demanding. I can see myself making the
> same errors as confessed by other pilots under similar circumstances.
> I am grateful to learn from their mistakes. I do not want to see
> people gets discouraged or afraid of posting their flying experience
> for fear of criticism or condemnation.
>
> Hai Longworth
>

I agree 100%, Hai. I hope Kobra and others continue to post these type
of accounts. I learn a lot by reading and participating.

[Hilton]

Al G wrote:
>> Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You
> don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you?

I do.

A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that
must
be met for an aircraft to be considered "airworthy." 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c)
and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an
airworthiness certificate:

a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is
considered attained when the
aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the
drawings, specifications,
and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type
certificate (STC) and
field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.

b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to
the condition of the
aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion,
window delamination/crazing,
fluid leaks, and tire wear.

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be
considered unairworthy.

Hilton

[Al G[_2_]]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
t...
> Al G wrote:
>>> Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing
>>> less.
>>
>> Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You
>> don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you?
>
> I do.
>
> A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that
> must
> be met for an aircraft to be considered "airworthy." 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c)
> and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
> and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an
> airworthiness certificate:
>
> a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is
> considered attained when the
> aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with
> the drawings, specifications,
> and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental
> type certificate (STC) and
> field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.
>
> b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to
> the condition of the
> aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion,
> window delamination/crazing,
> fluid leaks, and tire wear.
>
> NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
> be
> considered unairworthy.
>
> Hilton
>
>

Thank you sir.

Al G

[dave]

Longworth wrote:
> Everytime that I read a post about some bad events from a fellow
> pilot, I always cringe in seeing reprimanding or scolding remarks from
> the Monday morning quarrterback or armchair pilots. It's a good thing
> the Callback site does not have a readers' feedback option!

Well said.
Dave
M35

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Landing with less than full flaps is CERTAINLY not "Beating up the
airplane." Where do you come up with such rubbish.

My Cessna's POH specifically states:

FLAP LIMITATIONS:

Approved Landing Range. 0--40
Not being able to select the proper flap for landing conditions is a serious
training flaw. Full flap all the time is ridiculous.

Karl


"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Get a real A&P to check out the flap situation. If its
>> not the breaker it could be the flap motor (one of the
>> reasons I do like manual flaps).
>>
>> As far as why you didn't notice that your flaps were
>> not working... well... that is disturbing. I notice
>> *every* little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in
>> my airplane.
>>
>> I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short
>> field.
>
> Why are you beating up the plane?
>
> I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was an
> 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a landing configuration and the
> performance in the book is based on that configuration...
>
> It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Maybe not, you don't have to USE them..........but they must be operable.

Karl

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hilton" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Al G wrote:
>>> Never the less, it is left to me to decide,
>>> and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO.
>>
>> It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're
>> missing that point.
>>
>> Hilton
>>
>
> (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
> determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
> pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
> mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur
>
> Nothing in the "regs" says I have to use flaps in a C172.
>
> Al G
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
order.
>
> There is some logic in this. All the Cessna AFMs I've seen (i.e. for
> various flavors of their piston singles) have nice detailed performance
> charts showing how much runway you need to land with various combinations
> of weight, temperature, elevation, wind, and phase of moon, but the
> numbers
> always are for full flaps. There is NO data on how much runway you need
> without flaps, therefor there is no way you can comply with 91.103 which
> requires that you familiarize yourself with the takeoff and landing
> distances.

Well, you certainly haven't seen all the Cessnas POHs. Mine has performance
numbers for "SHORT FIELD" only.

Normal landings can be conducted with ANY amount of flaps, per the FLAP
LIMITATIONS section.

Karl

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> I guess no one has ever landed an airworthy 1977 C172N!
>
Landing an unairworthy airplane is not the question.

It's knowingly taking off with an unairworthy airplane that is not only
illegal but stupid.

Karl

[Thomas Borchert]

Karl,

> Not being able to select the proper flap for landing conditions is a serious
> training flaw. Full flap all the time is ridiculous.
>

That the POH doesn't say ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:

> NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
> be considered unairworthy.

What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?

My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
paperwork problem.

Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.

The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?

- Andrew

[Al G[_2_]]

> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Hilton" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> Al G wrote:
>>>> Never the less, it is left to me to decide,
>>>> and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO.
>>>
>>> It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're
>>> missing that point.
>>>
>>> Hilton
>>>
>>
>> (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
>> determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
>> pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
>> mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur
>>
>> Nothing in the "regs" says I have to use flaps in a C172.
>>
>> Al G
>>
>
>

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe not, you don't have to USE them..........but they must be operable.
>
> Karl
>


I don't see where that is true.

Hilton helped us with the definition:

>a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is
>considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the components
>installed are >consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other
>data that are part of the TC, which >includes any supplemental type
>certificate (STC) and field approved alterations incorporated >into the
>aircraft.


Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the normal
operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with flaps
up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that case
your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate, and
therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is not
part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly home?

How about the landing light or panel lights during daylight operations? Not
needed, not part of the day VFR certification. Same thing right?

Are you telling me that if you were in Joseph, Oregon, (No mechanics, No
Feds, No help), and
you had a panel light dimmer failure, that you wouldn't fly home and get it
fixed?

This is almost getting to the point where "everything" must work, (zero
tolerance). If I have two navigation lights on each wing, and one of them
burns out, can I fly at night? It sounds awfully unsafe to say I'm going to
go out and fly at night with a known inoperative nav light.
In fact, if this were true, you would cut your dispatch rate by adding the
extra nav light, as that provides one more item to go bad, thereby doubling
the effective "Nav Light Cancellation Rate".

Al G

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:48:58 -0700, "Al G" >
wrote:

>Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the normal
>operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
>safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with flaps
>up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
>owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
>operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that case
>your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
>flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate, and
>therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

And for a H model where there is aparantly no limitation to the
contrary it likely doesn't. The point here is that at least in the R,
S, and T NAV III 172/182 models there *IS* a specific limitation that
for all intents and purposes requires the flap system be operable. The
point here is that people should check their own aircraft's POH to
make sure they are in compliance with the limitations when they have
inoperative equipment, regardless of what equipment is inop.

>If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
>operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is not
>part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly home?

If it's not required explicitly in part 91, the next question that
needs an answer is wheter the item is listed as R or S in the KOEL or
eqipment list? If it's listed as required equipment in the KOEL or
equipment list then I postulate that yes, in fact, you either need to
fix it, or you do need a special cert to fly home if that item is
inopearive. It can and has been demonstrated to be different from
range of aircraft to range of aircraft, even in the same generic model
(I.E. Nav II or Nav III equipped 182T), and whatever POH is in that
specific airframe is what's required to be adhered to.

[Al G[_2_]]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:48:58 -0700, "Al G" >
> wrote:
>
>>Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the
>>normal
>>operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
>>safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with
>>flaps
>>up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
>>owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
>>operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that
>>case
>>your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
>>flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate,
>>and
>>therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.
>
> And for a H model where there is aparantly no limitation to the
> contrary it likely doesn't. The point here is that at least in the R,
> S, and T NAV III 172/182 models there *IS* a specific limitation that
> for all intents and purposes requires the flap system be operable. The
> point here is that people should check their own aircraft's POH to
> make sure they are in compliance with the limitations when they have
> inoperative equipment, regardless of what equipment is inop.
>

Agreed.


>>If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
>>operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is
>>not
>>part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly
>>home?
>
> If it's not required explicitly in part 91, the next question that
> needs an answer is wheter the item is listed as R or S in the KOEL or
> eqipment list? If it's listed as required equipment in the KOEL or
> equipment list then I postulate that yes, in fact, you either need to
> fix it, or you do need a special cert to fly home if that item is
> inopearive. It can and has been demonstrated to be different from
> range of aircraft to range of aircraft, even in the same generic model
> (I.E. Nav II or Nav III equipped 182T), and whatever POH is in that
> specific airframe is what's required to be adhered to.

Agreed.

So the OP was flying a C-177RG, I guess it depends on the year, and what is
in the KOEL if applicable.

Al G

[Darrel Toepfer]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> The Arrow wasn't all that bad with the original two-blade prop. But
> when the hub failed inspection requiring prop replacement, a decision
> was made to go with the 3-blade as it was cheaper (go figure). What a
> mistake. The 3-blade vibrates much more, doesn't perform any better
> on takeoff, climb or cruise, and performs MUCH worse during glide.

I'd look into having the prop indexed (ie. moved one blade on the hub) to
fix the vibration issue...

With the 3 blade, climb should be better, cruise will suffer, takeoff noise
should be reduced too...

My neighbors Baron lost nearly 8 knots on cruise, he's alot quieter when
taking off over the house, and climbs very well out of short strips
though...

[Hilton]

Andrew,

Airworthy is not the same as flyable or safe for flight etc.

Hilton


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:
>
>> NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
>> be considered unairworthy.
>
> What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
> was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?
>
> My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
> that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
> paperwork problem.
>
> Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
> operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
> annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
> inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.
>
> The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:54:46 +0000, Hilton wrote:

> Airworthy is not the same as flyable or safe for flight etc.

Yes, that is my point.

- Andrew

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> 10 kts too fast over the threshold is pretty significant. I don't fly the
> 177RG, but I found a checklist on the net that lists normal landing speeds
> at 60-70 kts and Vfe (top of the white arc, which is what you said you were
> doing on final) as 95. That's 25-35 kts too fast to land.


35 knots too fast isn't a flap issue. That's a serious training issue.
At least he wouldn't have been hurt in the wreck since he was so far
behind the airplane.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


> When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
> cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
> "practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
> and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
> the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.

That's really disappointing to hear. I didn't realize this attitude
even existed but this does explain some things I see. I have more fun
plunking my airplane down in small spots than just about anything else.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> Which isn't to say we shy away from short fields. We routinely fly
> into 2200 foot grass strips, so we're fairly proficient at it.

You should have no problem using a strip half that length with two of
you on board. Is your nosewheel/strut/firewall that delicate? That's
not Pipers reputation, that's Cessna's. Piper's rep is building planes
that are overweight, not fragile.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
>
> It is hard to miss Cessna flaps either. I have to admit to wondering
> where Kobra mind was during that landing. Full flaps in any Cessna I've
> flown is simply hard to ignore, but I haven't flown a 177.

I owned one. You can't miss them if you happen to be in the aircraft
during a landing.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:43:01 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Jul 9, 10:16 pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>> I land without flaps all the time when I am buy my self. I think I land
>> smother. I have done this in my Cherokee 180, BE 35, A36 and a skipper I
>> trained in for a short time."Kobra" > wrote in message
>>
>> . ..
>>
>>
>>
>> > Aviators,
>>
>> > My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed
>> > until Sunday.
>>
>> > On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
>> > raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
>> > that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming
>> > out of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
>> > pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
>> > man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.
>>
>> > The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
>> > heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
>> > picked up a tailwind.
>>
>> > I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp.
>>
>> > On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened.
>> > Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on
>> > landing and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely
>> > or unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I
>> > notice that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change
>> > pitch or that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I
>> > just didn't catch the fact that no flaps came out.
>>
>> > Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
>> > things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he
>> > used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane
>> > without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.
>>
>> > I took off and started to ponder the situation:
>>
>> > No flaps
>> > No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
>> > way could you see more than 3 miles)
>> > No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
>> > No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on
>> > landing)
>> > and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with
>> > my primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
>> > during the day with a headwind.
>>
>> > Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway
>> > off 19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was
>> > so high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible.
>>
>> > I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted
>> > to come in as flat as possible.

That's why they teach slips.

>>
>> > Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
>> > looking?
>>
>> > I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.
>>
>> > Kobra- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>W/o flaps you will land in a more nose high attitude, which tends to
>make for smoother landings, in my experience.

A Bo landed properly (landed, not flown on) with no flaps is so nose
high the only view you have of the airport is out the side windows.
In the past I'd practice them every few weeks. A no flap landing is
much faster than a proper landing and can easily use twice as much
runway as well. It also adds new meaning to the word, "float".

We had a DE here on the field who used to say, "anyone can fly one on
but it takes a pilot to land one".

>'
>-Robert, CFII

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:14:04 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>> The Arrow I now fly which has a 3-blade prop is much worse than my 182 in
>> the glide ratio department. I can barely make a 180 power-off landing with
>> it. You have to turn base as soon as you cut power abeam the landing spot
>> or you'll never make it!
>
>As a CFI giving me a checkout in an Arrow put it: "You can cut the power and
>glide a Cessna in, but a Piper comes down like dropped car keys."

You can also dead stick a Cherokee 180 with a little practice. If you
want steep try landing a Glasair III power off. It has a little bitty
wing with nearly 30# per sq foot of wing loading. The Cherokee is
about 17# (give or take depending on year and version) At best glide
you are probably looking at descent greater than 2200 fpm yet you
should be able to grease it on.

Even a Bonanza power off with gear out and full flaps has an
impressive rate of descent.OTOH with gear and flaps up best glide at
roughly 120 MPH gives a rate of descent of only 500 to 600 fpm which
gives a glide ratio between 17.6 and 21 to one.

Engine out is gear up and no flaps until the runway is made. Then you
hit the gear switch and flap switch to full. As you need to get rid
of a LOT of speed it's a good idea to practice this so you know "when
the runway is made" because if you wait until you are over the end of
the runway you are going to use a LOT of it, probably over 3000 feet.
OTOH a short filed landing will use less than 1200 and with a bit of
practice you can shorten that. Of course, final for a short field is
STEEP.

Flaps are a good portion of the energy management.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:17:41 GMT, Darrel Toepfer >
wrote:

>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> The Arrow wasn't all that bad with the original two-blade prop. But
>> when the hub failed inspection requiring prop replacement, a decision
>> was made to go with the 3-blade as it was cheaper (go figure). What a
>> mistake. The 3-blade vibrates much more, doesn't perform any better
>> on takeoff, climb or cruise, and performs MUCH worse during glide.
>
>I'd look into having the prop indexed (ie. moved one blade on the hub) to
>fix the vibration issue...
>
>With the 3 blade, climb should be better, cruise will suffer, takeoff noise
>should be reduced too...
>
>My neighbors Baron lost nearly 8 knots on cruise, he's alot quieter when
>taking off over the house, and climbs very well out of short strips
>though...

On the Deb I lost about 4 MPH on cruise and gained over 250 fpm on
climb. It also made energy management and landings much easier. Now
when ATC says "keep the speed up as long as praticable" it'll raise
some eyebrows. <:-)) Love it!

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:38:14 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.
>
>It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
>airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
>speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.

This should be a part of every ones practice.
>
>When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
>cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
>"practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,

Nope, not even with a Beech retract. I'd probably do two (or more) of
these about every time I'd go out and practice. After about the
second one I'd find the "airport bums" (group I hang out with) hanging
on the fence, grading the landings.

>and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
>the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.

I bought 'em to use and I used them to lean both the limits of the
airplane and myself.

>
>This post, IMHO, above all else, is a real tribute to the utility of
>manual, Johnson-bar flap actuators. Hard to miss when THOSE don't
>work.

When I add flaps I look at them. It's become a habit.
OTOH the Johnson bar flaps in the Cherokee 180 could make for a very
impressive, short roll out after a STEEP descent.

>
>:-)

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

> I bought 'em to use and I used them to learn both the limits of the
> airplane and myself.

Yep.

The Skylane has a reputation as a great short field airplane: I'm enjoying
making mine live up to that reputation.

Life is for living; airplanes are for flying.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[karl gruber[_1_]]

">
> You should have no problem using a strip half that length with two of you
> on board. Is your nosewheel/strut/firewall that delicate? That's not
> Pipers reputation, that's Cessna's. Piper's rep is building planes that
> are overweight, not fragile.
>

No. The Cherokees have MUCH more fragile landing gear. Not only that but
they are pushed through the wing so that repair is impractical. You'll NEVER
see a Cherokee SIX with 30,000 hours on it, like most Cessna 207s in Alaska.

Karl

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> That's really disappointing to hear. I didn't realize this attitude
> even existed but this does explain some things I see. I have more fun
> plunking my airplane down in small spots than just about anything else.
>

Me too. And I own it, too. It's not a smart attitude not to practice with
your own plane. But you're right, it does explain a lot of the "driving
on" of larger singles one sees.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, "Al G" > wrote:
> This is almost getting to the point where "everything" must work, (zero
> tolerance). If I have two navigation lights on each wing, and one of them
> burns out, can I fly at night? It sounds awfully unsafe to say I'm going to
> go out and fly at night with a known inoperative nav light.

It's not so simple but it's not complicated either. The
regs detail what needs to be installed and working for any particular
sort of flight (day VFR, night VFR, and so on) and if something is
dead, something like a landing light, it must be snagged in the
logbook and then deferred if you want to keep flying. Determining who
can defer a defect becomes your job. There are things (like fuel
gauges) that have to be working all the time and can't be deferred.
See CAR 605.14 thru 605.41 to see what you need:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/605.htm#605_14

Then see CAR 605.10 to see how to deal with dead stuff:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/605.htm#605_10

That pooched landing light isn't necessary here in Canada at
night if you aren't carrying passengers, but I still wouldn't want to
fly without it. I want to see that deer on the runway so I can go
around. Nav lights ARE necessary, as is the anti-collision light. Dead
flaps would be a real debate between the mechanic and pilot, and the
mechanic is going to be conservative because it's his signature on the
line deferring them. As a mechanic, I would get a ferry permit to
avoid the risk of losing my ticket and to avoid putting passengers at
risk. If that engine quits and the pilot has to put the thing down is
an inconvenient spot, those flaps could make the difference between
landing at a survivable speed or getting smashed to bits.
The airplane doesn't have to be perfect. It needs to be
safe for the intended flight.

Dan

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:04:00 -0700, wrote:

> It's not so simple but it's not complicated either. The
>regs detail what needs to be installed and working for any particular
>sort of flight (day VFR, night VFR, and so on) and if something is
>dead, something like a landing light, it must be snagged in the
>logbook and then deferred if you want to keep flying. Determining who
>can defer a defect becomes your job. There are things (like fuel
>gauges) that have to be working all the time and can't be deferred.
>See CAR 605.14 thru 605.41 to see what you need:
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/605.htm#605_14
>
> Then see CAR 605.10 to see how to deal with dead stuff:
>http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/605.htm#605_10

I would proffer that in those airframes which have a KOEL or MEL which
is more restrictive for required equipment you are required to abide
by that above and beyond what is explicitly listed in the regs.