flaps again

[Kobra]

Flyers,

First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. I didn't notice they had not
deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. They I remembered
out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
difficult then ever before. I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
realize that their flaps didn't come out! THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"

I thought I would relate a story that happened to my plane partner and I the
other day. My partner hadn't flown in a while and we went out to do some
maneuvers and some landings to get him current and proficient again.
Everything went fine until our last landing.

Throughout this last pattern I noticed that we were always fast on every
leg. I admonished him to slow down and get down. He was some what
distracted by a helicopter hovering just off the ground and off to the left
side of the final approach course. I notice that he had 30 degrees of flaps
in and he started to drift the IAS out of the white arc. I again sounded
off that his AS was way off and to fix it.

Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. That is not
possible. I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
were fully retracted.

He did not notice and was attempting to fix the problem by pulling the power
and trimming the nose up. (unwittingly setting himself up for a no flap
landing as I did in VA). We were on short final and I hesitated to say
anything as not to distract him at this critical time, but reflexively my
mouth just blurted out, "Dude...I have some really bad news for
you...you've got no flaps at all!" At first he wanted to go around, but the
AS wasn't too bad and I said, "No...just keep this attitude and come in
flat." That is what he did and we had no problems.

I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided. He would have
landed fast and long, braked hard and wondered why he had so much difficulty
slowing down. He would not have realized what happened until and unless he
did the next pre-flight and set the flaps to full for inspection.

This was a new motor bought from Cessna. Turns out that one of the brushes
was hanging up in it's housing and not making contact with the commutator.
He widened the housing and that was the end of that problem.

Kobra
C177RG

PS: and now Multi-engine, Multi-engine instrument, Multi-engine commercial
rated!! whoa whooh!! Regionals...here I come.

[Tina]

Was this experience in the Cessna?

On Dec 30, 9:06*pm, "Kobra" > wrote:
> Flyers,
>
> First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
> in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. *I didn't notice they had not
> deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. *They I remembered
> out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
> difficult then ever before. *I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
> basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
> realize that their flaps didn't come out! *THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"
>
> I thought I would relate a story that happened to my plane partner and I the
> other day. *My partner hadn't flown in a while and we went out to do some
> maneuvers and some landings to get him current and proficient again.
> Everything went fine until our last landing.
>
> Throughout this last pattern I noticed that we were always fast on every
> leg. *I admonished him to slow down and get down. *He was some what
> distracted by a helicopter hovering just off the ground and off to the left
> side of the final approach course. *I notice that he had 30 degrees of flaps
> in and he started to drift the IAS out of the white arc. *I again sounded
> off that his AS was way off and to fix it.
>
> Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
> inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. *That is not
> possible. *I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
> were fully retracted.
>
> He did not notice and was attempting to fix the problem by pulling the power
> and trimming the nose up. *(unwittingly setting himself up for a no flap
> landing as I did in VA). *We were on short final and I hesitated to say
> anything as not to distract him at this critical time, but reflexively my
> mouth just blurted out, *"Dude...I have some really bad news for
> you...you've got no flaps at all!" *At first he wanted to go around, but the
> AS wasn't too bad and I said, "No...just keep this attitude and come in
> flat." *That is what he did and we had no problems.
>
> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided. *He would have
> landed fast and long, braked hard and wondered why he had so much difficulty
> slowing down. *He would not have realized what happened until and unless he
> did the next pre-flight and set the flaps to full for inspection.
>
> This was a new motor bought from Cessna. *Turns out that one of the brushes
> was hanging up in it's housing and not making contact with the commutator.
> He widened the housing and that was the end of that problem.
>
> Kobra
> C177RG
>
> PS: *and now Multi-engine, Multi-engine instrument, Multi-engine commercial
> rated!! whoa whooh!! Regionals...here I come.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Dec 30, 9:15*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Was this experience in the Cessna?
>
> On Dec 30, 9:06*pm, "Kobra" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Flyers,
>
> > First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
> > in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. *I didn't notice they had not
> > deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. *They I remembered
> > out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
> > difficult then ever before. *I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
> > basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
> > realize that their flaps didn't come out! *THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"
>
> > I thought I would relate a story that happened to my plane partner and I the
> > other day. *My partner hadn't flown in a while and we went out to do some
> > maneuvers and some landings to get him current and proficient again.
> > Everything went fine until our last landing.
>
> > Throughout this last pattern I noticed that we were always fast on every
> > leg. *I admonished him to slow down and get down. *He was some what
> > distracted by a helicopter hovering just off the ground and off to the left
> > side of the final approach course. *I notice that he had 30 degrees of flaps
> > in and he started to drift the IAS out of the white arc. *I again sounded
> > off that his AS was way off and to fix it.
>
> > Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
> > inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. *That is not
> > possible. *I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
> > were fully retracted.
>
> > He did not notice and was attempting to fix the problem by pulling the power
> > and trimming the nose up. *(unwittingly setting himself up for a no flap
> > landing as I did in VA). *We were on short final and I hesitated to say
> > anything as not to distract him at this critical time, but reflexively my
> > mouth just blurted out, *"Dude...I have some really bad news for
> > you...you've got no flaps at all!" *At first he wanted to go around, but the
> > AS wasn't too bad and I said, "No...just keep this attitude and come in
> > flat." *That is what he did and we had no problems.
>
> > I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
> > in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
> > three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided. *He would have
> > landed fast and long, braked hard and wondered why he had so much difficulty
> > slowing down. *He would not have realized what happened until and unless he
> > did the next pre-flight and set the flaps to full for inspection.
>
> > This was a new motor bought from Cessna. *Turns out that one of the brushes
> > was hanging up in it's housing and not making contact with the commutator.

[Al[_2_]]

I love the manual flaps in my Cessna 172E

Al
SFF
Spokane, WA

Kobra wrote:
> Flyers,
>
> First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
> in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. I didn't notice they had not
> deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. >

[Denny]

On Dec 30, 9:38*pm, Al > wrote:
> I love the manual flaps in my Cessna 172E
>
> Al
> SFF
> Spokane, WA
>
>
>
> Kobra wrote:
> > Flyers,
>
> > First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
> > in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. *I didn't notice they had not
> > deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. *>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ya know, flaps are not the only way to land... Once you have mastered
the basics and gotten the rating, you need to keep expanding your zone
of comfort...
Try some half flap landings, followed by quarter flap landings,
followed by no flap landings... Cross wind landings... And on a light
wind day <emphasis, LIGHT> do a downwind landing and a downwind
takeoff...
The aircraft will feel different <scary different for some> and the
sight picture out the windshield will be different... All of these
will be learning experiences that will increase your zone of comfort
in handling the plane in the future...
The major difference between Joe Pilot <you and me> and some hotshot
airshow or military pilot is that they have worked their zone of
comfort up to having the aircraft on the very edge of 'out of
control...
Notice I am not advocating doing dangerous things, but simply,
stepwise, to increase your zone of comfort inside of the aircrafts
performance envelope...

denny

[Maxwell]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>
> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild
> distractions
> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each
> of
> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided.

You shouldn't, it really just indicates both of you have a problem.
Transitioning from 0 to 30/40 degrees flaps changes the pitch and trim
handling on a 150, 152, 172, 177, 182 so much - if you can't sense the
difference, you really need to spend a LOT more time with the airplane.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Kobra" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild
>> distractions
>> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at
>> each of
>> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided.
>
> You shouldn't, it really just indicates both of you have a problem.

Mmm, yeah, but the real lesson here is it's foolish to mock someone for a
mistake, better to say "there but for the grace of god" or to put it
another way "pride goeth before a stall"
Anybody can **** up anything on any airplane at any time. Looking around
constantly for the error you are almost certainly making at any given
moment is the hallmark of a really good aviator.

Bertie

[Dave[_3_]]

Hmmmm..............

In our Cessna 172, flap extension also involved very signigicant trim
changes/speed and power changes. The lack of flap extension one time
(bad switch) was unmistaken and immediately apparent..

What Model Cessna?

I as well wonder how this would not be noticed, but my experience is
limited to one model Cessna.

Our (now) Warrior has a big black lever, NO DOUBT when the flaps are
down! :)

Wondering... (?)

Dave



..On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:06:17 -0500, "Kobra" > wrote:

>Flyers,
>
>First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
>in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. I didn't notice they had not
>deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. They I remembered
>out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
>difficult then ever before. I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
>basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
>realize that their flaps didn't come out! THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"
>
>I thought I would relate a story that happened to my plane partner and I the
>other day. My partner hadn't flown in a while and we went out to do some
>maneuvers and some landings to get him current and proficient again.
>Everything went fine until our last landing.
>
>Throughout this last pattern I noticed that we were always fast on every
>leg. I admonished him to slow down and get down. He was some what
>distracted by a helicopter hovering just off the ground and off to the left
>side of the final approach course. I notice that he had 30 degrees of flaps
>in and he started to drift the IAS out of the white arc. I again sounded
>off that his AS was way off and to fix it.
>
>Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
>inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. That is not
>possible. I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
>were fully retracted.
>
>He did not notice and was attempting to fix the problem by pulling the power
>and trimming the nose up. (unwittingly setting himself up for a no flap
>landing as I did in VA). We were on short final and I hesitated to say
>anything as not to distract him at this critical time, but reflexively my
>mouth just blurted out, "Dude...I have some really bad news for
>you...you've got no flaps at all!" At first he wanted to go around, but the
>AS wasn't too bad and I said, "No...just keep this attitude and come in
>flat." That is what he did and we had no problems.
>
>I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
>in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
>three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided. He would have
>landed fast and long, braked hard and wondered why he had so much difficulty
>slowing down. He would not have realized what happened until and unless he
>did the next pre-flight and set the flaps to full for inspection.
>
>This was a new motor bought from Cessna. Turns out that one of the brushes
>was hanging up in it's housing and not making contact with the commutator.
>He widened the housing and that was the end of that problem.
>
>Kobra
>C177RG
>
>PS: and now Multi-engine, Multi-engine instrument, Multi-engine commercial
>rated!! whoa whooh!! Regionals...here I come.
>

[[email protected]]

On Dec 31, 8:59 am, Dave > wrote:
> Hmmmm..............
>
> In our Cessna 172, flap extension also involved very signigicant trim
> changes/speed and power changes. The lack of flap extension one time
> (bad switch) was unmistaken and immediately apparent..
>
> What Model Cessna?
>
> I as well wonder how this would not be noticed, but my experience is
> limited to one model Cessna.

I've flown the 150, 172, 180, 182, 185 and 206 and all
except the 180 and 185 do the same thing. The stab is in the downwash
off the flaps and the nose will rise when flaps are applied. The
180/185 have the stab mounted lower and out of the downwash and will
need nose-up trim with flap, if I remember right; haven't flown one
for seven or eight years. I flew the 177 a long time ago but can't
rememer what it did.
There are some other high-wing airplanes that don't do this.
They'll put the nose down with flap, which is what would be expected
as the CP moves aft with flaps going down.
My old Auster had two trim tabs: One manually controlled,
the other connected to the flap system so that it kept the attitude
constant wherever the flaps were set. Worked well. Haven't seen it on
any other airplane. They were Zap flaps, too; the airplane would fly
very slowly with them down and could be glided very steeply without
gaining airspeed. To meet military specs, no doubt. Pictures:
http://www.beloblog.com/KGW_Blogs/weather/P6260159.JPG
http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/images/historic_gallery/wallpaper/aop.jpg

> Our (now) Warrior has a big black lever, NO DOUBT when the flaps are
> down! :)

Flaps for *real* pilots.You can spot one of those: big biceps
on the right arm :-)

Dan

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:45:44 -0600, "Maxwell" >
wrote:

>
>"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild
>> distractions
>> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each
>> of
>> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided.
>
>You shouldn't, it really just indicates both of you have a problem.
>Transitioning from 0 to 30/40 degrees flaps changes the pitch and trim
>handling on a 150, 152, 172, 177, 182 so much - if you can't sense the
>difference, you really need to spend a LOT more time with the airplane.

I agree with Maxwell. Within very small ranges, power settings and
aircraft configuration will always be pretty much the same. If you
have signficantly different power settings than you are expecting and
usually use for the configuration you have selected, look for
something to be set wrong or not working - flaps, gear, whatever.

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 1, 1:23 am, Denny > wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:38 pm, Al > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I love the manual flaps in my Cessna 172E
>
> > Al
> > SFF
> > Spokane, WA
>
> > Kobra wrote:
> > > Flyers,
>
> > > First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
> > > in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. I didn't notice they had not
> > > deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. >- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ya know, flaps are not the only way to land... Once you have mastered
> the basics and gotten the rating, you need to keep expanding your zone
> of comfort...
> Try some half flap landings, followed by quarter flap landings,
> followed by no flap landings... Cross wind landings... And on a light
> wind day <emphasis, LIGHT> do a downwind landing and a downwind
> takeoff...
> The aircraft will feel different <scary different for some> and the
> sight picture out the windshield will be different... All of these
> will be learning experiences that will increase your zone of comfort
> in handling the plane in the future...
> The major difference between Joe Pilot <you and me> and some hotshot
> airshow or military pilot is that they have worked their zone of
> comfort up to having the aircraft on the very edge of 'out of
> control...
> Notice I am not advocating doing dangerous things, but simply,
> stepwise, to increase your zone of comfort inside of the aircrafts
> performance envelope...
>
> denny

Don't you have to demonstrate flapless, short field and normal
landings as part of you certificate?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 1, 2:45 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Kobra" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild
> > distractions
> > in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each
> > of
> > three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided.
>
> You shouldn't, it really just indicates both of you have a problem.
> Transitioning from 0 to 30/40 degrees flaps changes the pitch and trim
> handling on a 150, 152, 172, 177, 182 so much - if you can't sense the
> difference, you really need to spend a LOT more time with the airplane.

Too right! I can't believe he could not feel the difference in the
plane as flaps extend. You can also feel vibration and hear the motor
in all the SE Cessnas I've flown. Is this another simmer? If not I
agree he really needs some quality training.

Cheers

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> news:2a8f80a4-d43b-4daf-b9c8-> Don't you have to demonstrate flapless, short
> field and normal
>> landings as part of you certificate?
>
> Not flapless.


I had to.

[Vaughn Simon]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
news:2a8f80a4-d43b-4daf-b9c8-> Don't you have to demonstrate flapless, short
field and normal
> landings as part of you certificate?

Not flapless.

Vaughn

[Gig601XLBuilder]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>> news:2a8f80a4-d43b-4daf-b9c8-> Don't you have to demonstrate flapless,
>> short field and normal
>>> landings as part of you certificate?
>>
>> Not flapless.
>
>
> I had to.


I didn't and a look at the PTS standards doesn't show it as a requirement.

IV. TAKEOFFS, LANDINGS, AND GO-AROUNDS
! A. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff and Climb (ASEL and ASES)
! B. Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing
(ASEL and ASES)
! C. Soft-Field Takeoff and Climb (ASEL)
! D. Soft-Field Approach and Landing (ASEL)
! E. Short-Field (Confined Area—ASES) Takeoff and
Maximum Performance Climb (ASEL and ASES)
! F. Short-Field Approach (Confined Area—ASES) and Landing
(ASEL and ASES)
! G. Glassy Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
! H. Glassy Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
! I. Rough Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
! J. Rough Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
! K. Forward Slip to a Landing (ASEL and ASES)
! L. Go-Around/Rejected Landing (ASEL and ASES)

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>>> news:2a8f80a4-d43b-4daf-b9c8-> Don't you have to demonstrate flapless,
>>> short field and normal
>>>> landings as part of you certificate?
>>>
>>> Not flapless.
>>
>> I had to.
>
> I didn't and a look at the PTS standards doesn't show it as a requirement.
>
> IV. TAKEOFFS, LANDINGS, AND GO-AROUNDS
> ! A. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff and Climb (ASEL and ASES)
> ! B. Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing
> (ASEL and ASES)
> ! C. Soft-Field Takeoff and Climb (ASEL)
> ! D. Soft-Field Approach and Landing (ASEL)
> ! E. Short-Field (Confined Area?ASES) Takeoff and
> Maximum Performance Climb (ASEL and ASES)
> ! F. Short-Field Approach (Confined Area?ASES) and Landing
> (ASEL and ASES)
> ! G. Glassy Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
> ! H. Glassy Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
> ! I. Rough Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
> ! J. Rough Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
> ! K. Forward Slip to a Landing (ASEL and ASES)
> ! L. Go-Around/Rejected Landing (ASEL and ASES)

Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>>>> news:2a8f80a4-d43b-4daf-b9c8-> Don't you have to demonstrate flapless,
>>>> short field and normal
>>>>> landings as part of you certificate?
>>>> Not flapless.
>>> I had to.
>> I didn't and a look at the PTS standards doesn't show it as a requirement.
>>
>> IV. TAKEOFFS, LANDINGS, AND GO-AROUNDS
>> ! A. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff and Climb (ASEL and ASES)
>> ! B. Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing
>> (ASEL and ASES)
>> ! C. Soft-Field Takeoff and Climb (ASEL)
>> ! D. Soft-Field Approach and Landing (ASEL)
>> ! E. Short-Field (Confined Area?ASES) Takeoff and
>> Maximum Performance Climb (ASEL and ASES)
>> ! F. Short-Field Approach (Confined Area?ASES) and Landing
>> (ASEL and ASES)
>> ! G. Glassy Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
>> ! H. Glassy Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
>> ! I. Rough Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
>> ! J. Rough Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
>> ! K. Forward Slip to a Landing (ASEL and ASES)
>> ! L. Go-Around/Rejected Landing (ASEL and ASES)
>
> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>

Yeah it's there and I've marked it below. But that doesn't mean you have
to land with the gear up if the guy giving you the test tells you to.

X. AREA OF OPERATION: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
<SNIP>
2. Analyzes the situation and takes appropriate action for simulated
emergencies appropriate to the airplane provided for the practical
test for at least three (3) of the following—
a. partial or complete power loss.
b. engine roughness or overheat.
c. carburetor or induction icing.
d. loss of oil pressure.
e. fuel starvation.
f. electrical malfunction.
g. vacuum/pressure, and associated flight instruments malfunction.
h. pitot/static.
>>>>>>>i. landing gear or flap malfunction.<<<<<<<<<<
j. inoperative trim.
k. inadvertent door or window opening.
l. structural icing.
m. smoke/fire/engine compartment fire.
n. any other emergency appropriate to the airplane.
3. Follows the appropriate checklist or procedure.

[Brian[_1_]]

<snip>
>
> > I as well wonder how this would not be noticed, but my experience is
> > limited to one model Cessna.
>
> * * * * * *I've flown the 150, 172, 180, 182, 185 and 206 and all
> except the 180 and 185 do the same thing. The stab is in the downwash
> off the flaps and the nose will rise when flaps are applied. The
<snip>

It have been a few years since I flew a 177 and it wasn't an RG.
However as I recall the flaps on the 177 are much smaller than most of
the other Cessnas.
They are more simlar to the flaps on the Cherokee.

I don't recall how much pitch change they induced on the 177 but
if there was a Cessna that the flaps didn't change the pitch much it
probably would be the 177.
I am sure there are a few others like possibly the C-140, C-188, etc.

Brian
CFIG/ASEL

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Michael Ash > wrote:

> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?

When I'm teaching flapless landings, I never tell the student the flaps
failed. I just quietly place my foot on the flap lever (works well in a
PA-28) and refuse to move it :-)

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
wrote:
>
>Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?

My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.

He announced the flap failure while asking for the ground control
frequency on 2 mile final to New Haven.

I told him I was too busy to pull out the AF/D, and would look up the
correct frequency after landing. This was the correct answer.

At 50 ft. AGL on the no flap emergency landing, he told me to go
around, as the runway had debris on it. The go-around went well.
During the approach, I had to describe the differences in between a
no-flap landing and a normal landing. (hint: Green and White arcs,
higher turning stall speeds) I also had to answer questions on if I
would land on specific local runways with a flap failure, and why my
landing roll would be longer.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Kobra wrote:
> Flyers,
>
> First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
> in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. I didn't notice they had not
> deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. They I remembered
> out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
> difficult then ever before. I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
> basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
> realize that their flaps didn't come out! THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"
>
> I thought I would relate a story that happened to my plane partner and I the
> other day. My partner hadn't flown in a while and we went out to do some
> maneuvers and some landings to get him current and proficient again.
> Everything went fine until our last landing.
>
> Throughout this last pattern I noticed that we were always fast on every
> leg. I admonished him to slow down and get down. He was some what
> distracted by a helicopter hovering just off the ground and off to the left
> side of the final approach course. I notice that he had 30 degrees of flaps
> in and he started to drift the IAS out of the white arc. I again sounded
> off that his AS was way off and to fix it.
>
> Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
> inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. That is not
> possible. I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
> were fully retracted.
>
> He did not notice and was attempting to fix the problem by pulling the power
> and trimming the nose up. (unwittingly setting himself up for a no flap
> landing as I did in VA). We were on short final and I hesitated to say
> anything as not to distract him at this critical time, but reflexively my
> mouth just blurted out, "Dude...I have some really bad news for
> you...you've got no flaps at all!" At first he wanted to go around, but the
> AS wasn't too bad and I said, "No...just keep this attitude and come in
> flat." That is what he did and we had no problems.
>
> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided. He would have
> landed fast and long, braked hard and wondered why he had so much difficulty
> slowing down. He would not have realized what happened until and unless he
> did the next pre-flight and set the flaps to full for inspection.
>
> This was a new motor bought from Cessna. Turns out that one of the brushes
> was hanging up in it's housing and not making contact with the commutator.
> He widened the housing and that was the end of that problem.
>
> Kobra
> C177RG
>
> PS: and now Multi-engine, Multi-engine instrument, Multi-engine commercial
> rated!! whoa whooh!! Regionals...here I come.
>
>

As my good ole' buddy Chris Patterakis (ex-Thunderbird lead and general
good guy) used to say, "We don't fly in a one cue world".
This simple statement should be a large sign stapled on the door of
every pilot's bedroom so they read it every day until it became a living
part of their flying mindset.
I honestly can't conceive of a situation in a light GA aircraft where a
pilot could attempt lowering the flaps and not know immediately if they
were in the equation. The cues available are just too many to ignore.
You have the obvious visual check, and if that isn't available, the
changes and/or lack of same in the aircraft's performance should become
immediately apparent to a "tuned in" pilot.

On the other hand, a flaps up landing should be part and parcel of every
pilot's training curriculum and should be a non event should the need
arise to make one.

The bottom line on this is that there should have been instant
recognition of the situation using any and all available cues and the
situation assessed and acted on by a deliberate action either to land
the airplane flaps up with all the expected behavior associated with
that decision, or, if not enough time to set up or enough romm to do
that, a go around should have been initiated and the problem
investigated out of the pattern.
Either way, this situation should have been handled in such a way that
at no time during the approach was the airplane flying the pilot and not
the other way around :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:2a8f80a4-d43b-4daf-b9c8-> Don't you have to demonstrate flapless,
>>>>> short field and normal
>>>>>> landings as part of you certificate?
>>>>> Not flapless.
>>>> I had to.
>>> I didn't and a look at the PTS standards doesn't show it as a requirement.
>>>
>>> IV. TAKEOFFS, LANDINGS, AND GO-AROUNDS
>>> ! A. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff and Climb (ASEL and ASES)
>>> ! B. Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing
>>> (ASEL and ASES)
>>> ! C. Soft-Field Takeoff and Climb (ASEL)
>>> ! D. Soft-Field Approach and Landing (ASEL)
>>> ! E. Short-Field (Confined Area?ASES) Takeoff and
>>> Maximum Performance Climb (ASEL and ASES)
>>> ! F. Short-Field Approach (Confined Area?ASES) and Landing
>>> (ASEL and ASES)
>>> ! G. Glassy Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
>>> ! H. Glassy Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
>>> ! I. Rough Water Takeoff and Climb (ASES)
>>> ! J. Rough Water Approach and Landing (ASES)
>>> ! K. Forward Slip to a Landing (ASEL and ASES)
>>> ! L. Go-Around/Rejected Landing (ASEL and ASES)
>>
>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>
> Yeah it's there and I've marked it below. But that doesn't mean you have
> to land with the gear up if the guy giving you the test tells you to.

Right, but part of the expectation of the test is to follow it through as
far as you can safely do so. When he pulls the power on you, you're not
expected to *actually* land in some guy's field, but at the same time you
don't smack his hand away from the throttle and keep going. I would expect
that a simulated landing gear failure would consist of going through
whatever checks are appropriate for that situation and making sure you
handle that end of things in a reasonable manner. Since stuck flaps can be
taken all the way to completion safely, there's no reason to stop early.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>
> When I'm teaching flapless landings, I never tell the student the flaps
> failed. I just quietly place my foot on the flap lever (works well in a
> PA-28) and refuse to move it :-)

Ooh, you're mean.

Seriously though, it seems to me that this is a better approach than
simply announcing the failure. It's much more realistic and teaches the
student to be adaptable when something doesn't work the way it should,
instead of just changing the tune to follow the instructor.

The big emergency us glider types just love to practice is low-altitude
tow rope breaks. Instructors have you practice those by pulling the
release knob on you with no advance warning. Makes a loud bang with the
treetops awfully close. First time scared and surprised me so much I
literally froze on the controls and probably would have died if I had been
alone. Second time was a piece of cake. If you don't surprise your
students in training then their first surprise is going to be a *real*
emergency, and that's no good, so I'm all for your style of doing things.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
> wrote:
>>
>>Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>
> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>
> He announced the flap failure while asking for the ground control
> frequency on 2 mile final to New Haven.
>
> I told him I was too busy to pull out the AF/D, and would look up the
> correct frequency after landing. This was the correct answer.

Cool, good to know I'm not totally off base. Those examiners are tricky
devils. Thanks for the story.

The rough equivalent in gliders is a no-spoiler landing, except that in
any decently-performing glider, trying to land without spoilers is like
trying to sink a body in the East River without concrete shoes: it just
won't go down. My examiner had me fly a pattern using slip instead of
spoilers until a point on short final where there was just no other way to
make a decent landing, at which point he let me open them and land.

I have done one landing with no spoilers (except when flaring, since I
didn't want to float forever) in an older glider, and even there it was
quite a challenge and took me two tries to get it right. I'm pretty sure
that if it happened for real I could survive the experience but it
wouldn't be pretty and might end up being expensive.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Michael Ash > wrote:

> In rec.aviation.student Roy Smith > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Michael Ash > wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
> >> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
> >
> > When I'm teaching flapless landings, I never tell the student the flaps
> > failed. I just quietly place my foot on the flap lever (works well in a
> > PA-28) and refuse to move it :-)
>
> Ooh, you're mean.
>
> Seriously though, it seems to me that this is a better approach than
> simply announcing the failure. It's much more realistic and teaches the
> student to be adaptable when something doesn't work the way it should,
> instead of just changing the tune to follow the instructor.

Exactly. It also teaches you to fly the damn airplane and not get
distracted by little ****. Just about to turn base is no time to be going
heads down in the cockpit or getting distracted.

Declare you're landing without flaps? Fine. Declare you're exiting the
pattern until you can sort this out? Fine. Give me a sharp poke in the
ribs to get me to move my foot? Well, it's not the response I was hoping
for, but it's not the worst you could do :-) Getting into an argument with
me at the expense of your traffic scan? Not fine.

The hardest part of dealing with any equipment failure is recognizing that
it's happened.

[Dave[_3_]]

OK, so I am missing something..

In large , more complex aircraft, I can see the difficulty landing
without flaps.

But in a 172 or a Warrior?

......with sufficient runway, and in strong winds, I sometimes prefer
no flaps.

My Warrior POH indicates flaps are to be used as needed, no flap
landings are not indicated as requiring an emergency procedure...

In training aircraft?

Dave



On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:32:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Kobra wrote:
>> Flyers,
>>
>> First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittinglI Have to ask now.
y landed one day
>> in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. I didn't notice they had not
>> deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. They I remembered
>> out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
>> difficult then ever before. I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
>> basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
>> realize that their flaps didn't come out! THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"
>>
>> I thought I would relate a story that happened to my plane partner and I the
>> other day. My partner hadn't flown in a while and we went out to do some
>> maneuvers and some landings to get him current and proficient again.
>> Everything went fine until our last landing.
>>
>> Throughout this last pattern I noticed that we were always fast on every
>> leg. I admonished him to slow down and get down. He was some what
>> distracted by a helicopter hovering just off the ground and off to the left
>> side of the final approach course. I notice that he had 30 degrees of flaps
>> in and he started to drift the IAS out of the white arc. I again sounded
>> off that his AS was way off and to fix it.
>>
>> Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
>> inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. That is not
>> possible. I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
>> were fully retracted.
>>
>> He did not notice and was attempting to fix the problem by pulling the power
>> and trimming the nose up. (unwittingly setting himself up for a no flap
>> landing as I did in VA). We were on short final and I hesitated to say
>> anything as not to distract him at this critical time, but reflexively my
>> mouth just blurted out, "Dude...I have some really bad news for
>> you...you've got no flaps at all!" At first he wanted to go around, but the
>> AS wasn't too bad and I said, "No...just keep this attitude and come in
>> flat." That is what he did and we had no problems.
>>
>> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
>> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
>> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided. He would have
>> landed fast and long, braked hard and wondered why he had so much difficulty
>> slowing down. He would not have realized what happened until and unless he
>> did the next pre-flight and set the flaps to full for inspection.
>>
>> This was a new motor bought from Cessna. Turns out that one of the brushes
>> was hanging up in it's housing and not making contact with the commutator.
>> He widened the housing and that was the end of that problem.
>>
>> Kobra
>> C177RG
>>
>> PS: and now Multi-engine, Multi-engine instrument, Multi-engine commercial
>> rated!! whoa whooh!! Regionals...here I come.
>>
>>
>
>As my good ole' buddy Chris Patterakis (ex-Thunderbird lead and general
>good guy) used to say, "We don't fly in a one cue world".
>This simple statement should be a large sign stapled on the door of
>every pilot's bedroom so they read it every day until it became a living
>part of their flying mindset.
>I honestly can't conceive of a situation in a light GA aircraft where a
>pilot could attempt lowering the flaps and not know immediately if they
>were in the equation. The cues available are just too many to ignore.
>You have the obvious visual check, and if that isn't available, the
>changes and/or lack of same in the aircraft's performance should become
>immediately apparent to a "tuned in" pilot.
>
>On the other hand, a flaps up landing should be part and parcel of every
>pilot's training curriculum and should be a non event should the need
>arise to make one.
>
>The bottom line on this is that there should have been instant
>recognition of the situation using any and all available cues and the
>situation assessed and acted on by a deliberate action either to land
>the airplane flaps up with all the expected behavior associated with
>that decision, or, if not enough time to set up or enough romm to do
>that, a go around should have been initiated and the problem
>investigated out of the pattern.
>Either way, this situation should have been handled in such a way that
>at no time during the approach was the airplane flying the pilot and not
>the other way around :-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dave wrote:
> OK, so I am missing something..
>
> In large , more complex aircraft, I can see the difficulty landing
> without flaps.
>
> But in a 172 or a Warrior?
>
> .....with sufficient runway, and in strong winds, I sometimes prefer
> no flaps.
>
> My Warrior POH indicates flaps are to be used as needed, no flap
> landings are not indicated as requiring an emergency procedure...
>
> In training aircraft?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:32:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Kobra wrote:
>>> Flyers,
>>>
>>> First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittinglI Have to ask now.
> y landed one day
>>> in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. I didn't notice they had not
>>> deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. They I remembered
>>> out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
>>> difficult then ever before. I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
>>> basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
>>> realize that their flaps didn't come out! THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"
>>>
>>> I thought I would relate a story that happened to my plane partner and I the
>>> other day. My partner hadn't flown in a while and we went out to do some
>>> maneuvers and some landings to get him current and proficient again.
>>> Everything went fine until our last landing.
>>>
>>> Throughout this last pattern I noticed that we were always fast on every
>>> leg. I admonished him to slow down and get down. He was some what
>>> distracted by a helicopter hovering just off the ground and off to the left
>>> side of the final approach course. I notice that he had 30 degrees of flaps
>>> in and he started to drift the IAS out of the white arc. I again sounded
>>> off that his AS was way off and to fix it.
>>>
>>> Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
>>> inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. That is not
>>> possible. I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
>>> were fully retracted.
>>>
>>> He did not notice and was attempting to fix the problem by pulling the power
>>> and trimming the nose up. (unwittingly setting himself up for a no flap
>>> landing as I did in VA). We were on short final and I hesitated to say
>>> anything as not to distract him at this critical time, but reflexively my
>>> mouth just blurted out, "Dude...I have some really bad news for
>>> you...you've got no flaps at all!" At first he wanted to go around, but the
>>> AS wasn't too bad and I said, "No...just keep this attitude and come in
>>> flat." That is what he did and we had no problems.
>>>
>>> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
>>> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
>>> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided. He would have
>>> landed fast and long, braked hard and wondered why he had so much difficulty
>>> slowing down. He would not have realized what happened until and unless he
>>> did the next pre-flight and set the flaps to full for inspection.
>>>
>>> This was a new motor bought from Cessna. Turns out that one of the brushes
>>> was hanging up in it's housing and not making contact with the commutator.
>>> He widened the housing and that was the end of that problem.
>>>
>>> Kobra
>>> C177RG
>>>
>>> PS: and now Multi-engine, Multi-engine instrument, Multi-engine commercial
>>> rated!! whoa whooh!! Regionals...here I come.
>>>
>>>
>> As my good ole' buddy Chris Patterakis (ex-Thunderbird lead and general
>> good guy) used to say, "We don't fly in a one cue world".
>> This simple statement should be a large sign stapled on the door of
>> every pilot's bedroom so they read it every day until it became a living
>> part of their flying mindset.
>> I honestly can't conceive of a situation in a light GA aircraft where a
>> pilot could attempt lowering the flaps and not know immediately if they
>> were in the equation. The cues available are just too many to ignore.
>> You have the obvious visual check, and if that isn't available, the
>> changes and/or lack of same in the aircraft's performance should become
>> immediately apparent to a "tuned in" pilot.
>>
>> On the other hand, a flaps up landing should be part and parcel of every
>> pilot's training curriculum and should be a non event should the need
>> arise to make one.
>>
>> The bottom line on this is that there should have been instant
>> recognition of the situation using any and all available cues and the
>> situation assessed and acted on by a deliberate action either to land
>> the airplane flaps up with all the expected behavior associated with
>> that decision, or, if not enough time to set up or enough romm to do
>> that, a go around should have been initiated and the problem
>> investigated out of the pattern.
>> Either way, this situation should have been handled in such a way that
>> at no time during the approach was the airplane flying the pilot and not
>> the other way around :-)
>
No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no
flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a
no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the
student must be completely familiar with before solo.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no
> flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a
> no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the
> student must be completely familiar with before solo.

The issue with no flaps landings is not that the landing itself is an
emergency, but that the pilot should recognize that the flaps didn't extend
and adjust his plan accordingly. And understand the performance
implications.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
>> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no
>> flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a
>> no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
>> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
>> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
>> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the
>> student must be completely familiar with before solo.
>
> The issue with no flaps landings is not that the landing itself is an
> emergency, but that the pilot should recognize that the flaps didn't extend
> and adjust his plan accordingly. And understand the performance
> implications.

Like many CFI's who came up during my period, (old people :-) I much
preferred to teach no flap landings to students as BOTH a possible
emergency AND an option that could be used by a good pilot who for a
viable and safe reason wanted to land long for a far end turnoff on an
exceptionally long runway for example.
Many of the airplanes we flew as trainers had no flaps; i.e. Cubs,
Colts, etc. You learned early on in these airplanes to fly the approach
properly and with no "devices" to help you control the landing speed.
These airplanes are still in use today and in many cases are priced low
enough that many students becoming aircraft owners for the first time
will end up purchasing an aircraft with no flaps. I personally know two
pilots who own a J3 and a Piper Colt; each have no flaps.

Flaps and their use are VERY aircraft specific. In some airplanes a POH
might define a no flap landing as an emergency. Others simply alter the
approach profile a bit. In the T38 Talon for example, (I use this as the
airplane is extremely high performance and landing cfg is critical for
the Talon) the procedure for a no flap landing is to add 15kts to the
normal landing speed...period! No big deal at all.

Landing a normal GA airplane with no flaps should not pose a good pilot
any problems at all, and training should reflect this.

The bottom line is that instructors should teach landings in a way that
defines every one of them as a unique experience dealing with a unique
and ever changing dynamic. No two landings that a pilot will make during
an entire career will ever be exactly the same. Each landing carries its
own individual fingerprint.
No flaps can be an emergency landing or it can simply be a pilot's
option. Either way, the pilot should be on top of it and have each
individual landing planned based on current conditions existing for any
given instant in time that pertain to THAT landing.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Blueskies]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
> wrote:
>>
>>Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>
> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>


Exactly!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>> wrote:
>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>
>
>
> Exactly!
>
>
Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
emergency? :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly!
> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an emergency? :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Well, no, because there are no flaps on them. May be a bit extreme, but that is the way we used to teach it. If it's got
flaps, then use them for all 'normal' landings...

[Barry]

> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.

DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger
and of requiring immediate assistance.

URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely
but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.

So I would say that the inability to extend flaps would be considered an
emergency only if it puts you in serious or imminent danger, or causes you to
be concerned about safety.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly!
>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an emergency? :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Well, no, because there are no flaps on them. May be a bit extreme, but that is the way we used to teach it. If it's got
> flaps, then use them for all 'normal' landings...
>
>
>
Absolutely. If you got um use um by all means. It's all in the manner of
approach to the issue (no pun intended :-).
The point I'm making is simply that a no flap landing doesn't HAVE to be
only an emergency procedure. It can also be treated as a normal landing
done at a pilot's discretion in conditions where a no flap landing might
be expeditious.
We used them all the time at a field we used that had a nice long runway
with a turn off at the end that was optimum to use to visit the local
coffee shop. Not only was is expeditious to land with no flaps, but it
was the perfect opportunity to practice a no flap landing.
Some instructors like the black and white approach to flight
instruction. I have never been a huge fan of this approach to teaching
flying. If I have a student learning in a 150 Cessna, naturally I want
that student to be using flaps as a normal way to land that airplane.
On the other hand, I don't want to teach that student to fly a Cessna
150. I want to teach that student to fly an AIRPLANE.
This means that if that student gets his certificate, then goes over to
airport B and wants to rent a Decathlon, I don't want him going over
there thinking that landing an airplane with no flaps is strictly an
emergency situation. I want him thinking simply that the Decathlon lands
with no flaps and that's no big deal, as he's already learned that this
is normal behavior and has as well been thoroughly acclimated as to what
to expect in different behavior from such an airplane.
It's no big deal really, and is all in how an instructor deals with
these issues.
Nothing I've described here takes away from the fact that if a pilot
flying an airplane equipped with flaps can't lower them for some reason,
that this situation isn't handled as an unusual landing for THAT
airplane and as such can be classified as an "emergency procedure" for
THAT airplane.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 1 Jan, 17:14, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
> >> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no
> >> flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a
> >> no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
> >> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
> >> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
> >> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the
> >> student must be completely familiar with before solo.
>
> > The issue with no flaps landings is not that the landing itself is an
> > emergency, but that the pilot should recognize that the flaps didn't extend
> > and adjust his plan accordingly. *And understand the performance
> > implications.
>
> Like many CFI's who came up during my period, (old people :-) I much
> preferred to teach no flap landings to students as BOTH a possible
> emergency AND an option that could be used by a good pilot who for a
> viable and safe reason wanted to land long for a far end turnoff on an
> exceptionally long runway for example.
> Many of the airplanes we flew as trainers had no flaps; i.e. Cubs,
> Colts, etc. You learned early on in these airplanes to fly the approach
> properly and with no "devices" to help you control the landing speed.
> These airplanes are still in use today and in many cases are priced low
> enough that many students becoming aircraft owners for the first time
> will end up purchasing an aircraft with no flaps. I personally know two
> pilots who own a J3 and a Piper Colt; each have no flaps.
>
> Flaps and their use are VERY aircraft specific. In some airplanes a POH
> might define a no flap landing as an emergency. Others simply alter the
> approach profile a bit. In the T38 Talon for example, (I use this as the
> airplane is extremely high performance and landing cfg is critical for
> the Talon) the procedure for a no flap landing is to add 15kts to the
> normal landing speed...period! No big deal at all.
>
> Landing a normal GA airplane with no flaps should not pose a good pilot
> any problems at all, and training should reflect this.
>
> The bottom line is that instructors should teach landings in a way that
> defines every one of them as a unique experience dealing with a unique
> and ever changing dynamic. No two landings that a pilot will make during
> an entire career will ever be exactly the same. Each landing carries its
> own individual fingerprint.
> No flaps can be an emergency landing or it can simply be a pilot's
> option. Either way, the pilot should be on top of it and have each
> individual landing planned based on current conditions existing for any
> given instant in time that pertain to THAT landing.
>

Hear hear.
I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty
conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see
the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head. I
think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float
only prolong the agony.
Having said that, any pilot should be able to fly his airplane in any
reasonable configuration it might end up in and this should be taught
as a matter of course. I did some instruction in Cherokees(most of my
instruction was in Cubs) and found the flaps were confusing the issue
when the students were learning landings. I opted to do most of them
flapless and this porved quite productive. the problem was, none of
the other instructors were teaching this and it was off the page for
the school, so I kept it to a minimum.
Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:09 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>emergency? :-))

His exam focus was more about how flaps alter the landing than an
emergency.

The only "flap emergency" I've ever heard of belonged to a Musketeer
Sport who parks behind us. He kicked out the first notch, only to
have the right flap fall completely off. <G>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> On 1 Jan, 17:14, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
>>>> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no
>>>> flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a
>>>> no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
>>>> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
>>>> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
>>>> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the
>>>> student must be completely familiar with before solo.
>>> The issue with no flaps landings is not that the landing itself is an
>>> emergency, but that the pilot should recognize that the flaps didn't extend
>>> and adjust his plan accordingly. And understand the performance
>>> implications.
>> Like many CFI's who came up during my period, (old people :-) I much
>> preferred to teach no flap landings to students as BOTH a possible
>> emergency AND an option that could be used by a good pilot who for a
>> viable and safe reason wanted to land long for a far end turnoff on an
>> exceptionally long runway for example.
>> Many of the airplanes we flew as trainers had no flaps; i.e. Cubs,
>> Colts, etc. You learned early on in these airplanes to fly the approach
>> properly and with no "devices" to help you control the landing speed.
>> These airplanes are still in use today and in many cases are priced low
>> enough that many students becoming aircraft owners for the first time
>> will end up purchasing an aircraft with no flaps. I personally know two
>> pilots who own a J3 and a Piper Colt; each have no flaps.
>>
>> Flaps and their use are VERY aircraft specific. In some airplanes a POH
>> might define a no flap landing as an emergency. Others simply alter the
>> approach profile a bit. In the T38 Talon for example, (I use this as the
>> airplane is extremely high performance and landing cfg is critical for
>> the Talon) the procedure for a no flap landing is to add 15kts to the
>> normal landing speed...period! No big deal at all.
>>
>> Landing a normal GA airplane with no flaps should not pose a good pilot
>> any problems at all, and training should reflect this.
>>
>> The bottom line is that instructors should teach landings in a way that
>> defines every one of them as a unique experience dealing with a unique
>> and ever changing dynamic. No two landings that a pilot will make during
>> an entire career will ever be exactly the same. Each landing carries its
>> own individual fingerprint.
>> No flaps can be an emergency landing or it can simply be a pilot's
>> option. Either way, the pilot should be on top of it and have each
>> individual landing planned based on current conditions existing for any
>> given instant in time that pertain to THAT landing.
>>
>
> Hear hear.
> I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty
> conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see
> the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head. I
> think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float
> only prolong the agony.
> Having said that, any pilot should be able to fly his airplane in any
> reasonable configuration it might end up in and this should be taught
> as a matter of course. I did some instruction in Cherokees(most of my
> instruction was in Cubs) and found the flaps were confusing the issue
> when the students were learning landings. I opted to do most of them
> flapless and this porved quite productive. the problem was, none of
> the other instructors were teaching this and it was off the page for
> the school, so I kept it to a minimum.
> Bertie

I'm short enough that even sitting on a seat chute, in the Mustang, I
lowered 20 degrees of flap on downwind just to see over the damn nose :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:09 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>> emergency? :-))
>
> His exam focus was more about how flaps alter the landing than an
> emergency.
>
> The only "flap emergency" I've ever heard of belonged to a Musketeer
> Sport who parks behind us. He kicked out the first notch, only to
> have the right flap fall completely off. <G>

Now THAT would be an attention getter for the average Sunday pilot in a
big hurry :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>
>> Exactly!
>
> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
> emergency? :-))

No more than every landing made in a glider is an emergency. :)

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:41:58 -0500, "Barry" > wrote:

>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>
>From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
>EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.
>
>DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger
>and of requiring immediate assistance.
>
>URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely
>but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
>
>So I would say that the inability to extend flaps would be considered an
>emergency only if it puts you in serious or imminent danger, or causes you to
>be concerned about safety.

That's all great... Now, where is the no flap landing listed in the
Private Pilot PTS? <G>

Most of us agree it's far from an emergency, but the PTS doesn't list
"Urgency" or "Abnormal" conditions.

The examiner did not scream "Emergency!", blow horns, cry, etc...

He just said "Why don't you make this one a no-flap landing... Tell
me what's different if you need to land without flaps." After the
oral exam on flaps, we didn't even land, as he then pointed out
non-existent debris on the runway. Right before the flap failure, he
had me slip to lose altitude.

As we climbed away from the runway, he checked the "Flap Failure" off
in the "Emergency Procedures" list in the PTS. That's why it's an
"Emergency" in this context.

We went over all of the "Emergencies" listed in the PTS that were
applicable to the airplane I was flying.

Even though most of us think it's not a big deal, if the PIC of a
specific aircraft feels his of her specific flap failure has every
right to declare, no?

FWIW, The guy I know who had the right flap break off his Beech Sport
declared to the tower at the field he was landing! Why? He didn't
really know what the damage was. All he knew is that when he deployed
the flaps @ 1000 AGL, there was a big bang and the plane flew funny.
While it flew fine once he pulled them back in, he really didn't know
the extent of the damage to the plane.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> and found the flaps were confusing the issue
when the students were learning landings. I opted to do most of them
flapless and this porved quite productive. the problem was, none of
the other instructors were teaching this and it was off the page for
the school, so I kept it to a minimum.

It is amazing how attitudes change over time and how certain flying
procedures become part of our culture.

If I recall correctly, it was some time back in the 70's when some FAA
bureaucrat made a PTS change decreeing that a normal landing was to be with full
flaps. Before that, flap use was taught as something that was much more at the
pilot's option. The change caused quite a furor at the time. Some instructors
thought that full flap landings were much too advanced for mere student pilots!

Vaughn

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>
> When I'm teaching flapless landings, I never tell the student the flaps
> failed. I just quietly place my foot on the flap lever (works well in a
> PA-28) and refuse to move it :-)

That's what the proverbial D-cell flash light is for (preferably a
mag-lite).

[Hilton]

Dudley wrote:
> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no flap
> landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a no
> flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the student
> must be completely familiar with before solo.

I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we had a
total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him hold a
flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a glassy water
landing - worked perfectly!

Hilton

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Hilton wrote:
> Dudley wrote:
>> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
>> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no flap
>> landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a no
>> flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
>> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
>> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
>> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the student
>> must be completely familiar with before solo.
>
> I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we had a
> total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him hold a
> flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a glassy water
> landing - worked perfectly!
>
> Hilton
>
>
I can't resist this so forgive me :-))

......and all this after staying at a Hilton and not a Holiday Inn
Express last night? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
> wrote:
>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>
> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.

That is amazing. The only emergency associated with flaps is asymmetric
deployment! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which
>>>> would
>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
> emergency? :-))
>

Yes, especially when on one of those dangerous grass strips! :-)

Matt

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:51:57 -0800 (PST), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:

>I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty
>conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see
>the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head. I
>think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float
>only prolong the agony.

Flying a short-bodied Mooney, I would agree 100% with that comment.

I use full flaps for most landings. If the crosswinds or gusts are such
that I could not use the chosen runway, I have an alternate plan in mind.

The higher touchdown speed, and longer runway required landing with 0 flaps
versus 1/2 flaps versus full flaps is significant in my airplane, but does
not and should not present any kind of control issue.

I've used 0 flaps once out of necessity (landing with an iced up airplane
after getting into unforecast icing conditions); and I use 1/2 flaps
landing out of a CATII approach to minimums. Otherwise its full flaps.
--ron

[John Godwin]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> I can't resist this so forgive me :-))
>
> .....and all this after staying at a Hilton and not a Holiday Inn
> Express last night? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
Tacky, really tacky <lol>


--

[Roy Smith]

"Hilton" > wrote:

> I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we had a
> total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him hold a
> flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a glassy water
> landing - worked perfectly!

I'm confused -- if he was your student, why did you do the landing? Seems
like a perfect opportunity for a "learning experience".

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Hilton wrote:
> Dudley wrote:
>> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
>> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no flap
>> landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a no
>> flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
>> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
>> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
>> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the student
>> must be completely familiar with before solo.
>
> I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we had a
> total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him hold a
> flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a glassy water
> landing - worked perfectly!

I had a complete electrical failure in a C177RG at night on the way from
Duluth to Minneapolis back in 2003. Not wanting to fly into either the
Class B or the Mode C veil without radio contact, I elected to put down
at an uncontrolled field north of the Cities. A buddy was flying a 182
on the same trip a mile or so ahead of me, so I got him on my handheld
and told him the plan. He went in ahead of me, assuring the
pilot-controlled runway lights got turned on and handling any radio
comms that might be needed if any other traffic showed up, while I
circled to make sure I got the gear down. Took a bit of pumping to get
it locked - it was reassuring that the tiny amount of remaining power
was enough to get a green light when it locked. So then it was just a
matter of landing NORDO, no lights, no flaps, in the dark. What fun! I
was sure glad I had practiced all of those, albeit not all at once.

My buddy was waiting on the ramp and said the only thing he saw as I
came in was the runway edge lights blinking out as I rolled past them.

[Roy Smith]

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> So then it was just a
> matter of landing NORDO, no lights, no flaps, in the dark.

Man, you think it's tough landing with no lights in the dark, you should
try it during the day sometime. With the sun in your eyes, you can't even
tell if the lights are on or not.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

John Godwin wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> I can't resist this so forgive me :-))
>>
>> .....and all this after staying at a Hilton and not a Holiday Inn
>> Express last night? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
>>
> Tacky, really tacky <lol>
>
>

My wife's right! She's afraid to have me sit down with normal
un-punaholic people.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Barry wrote:
>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>
> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
> EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.
>
> DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger
> and of requiring immediate assistance.
>
> URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely
> but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
>
> So I would say that the inability to extend flaps would be considered an
> emergency only if it puts you in serious or imminent danger, or causes you to
> be concerned about safety.


I would call it no more than an annoyance unless I have to stuff the airplane
into a really short strip. Emergency? That examiner has to be kidding.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> So then it was just a
>> matter of landing NORDO, no lights, no flaps, in the dark.
>
> Man, you think it's tough landing with no lights in the dark, you should
> try it during the day sometime. With the sun in your eyes, you can't even
> tell if the lights are on or not.

Yeah, that would truly suck...

[Blueskies]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message et...
>
> I had a complete electrical failure in a C177RG...


Same thing happened way back when while I was working on my CFII. The instructor was left seat and flying and I noticed
that the radios were dark. I wondered what he did, and then mentioned it. Fortunately for us it was day VFR, so we just
flew on in to the [airport traffic area] tower and watched for the light gun signals. Steady green and we landed. As we
rolled off the runway we went over an expansion joint that jostled the plane, and the power came back on. Turned out
after days of troubleshooting there was in intermittent contact in one of the electrical connectors...

What was the problem with your bird?

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message et...
>> I had a complete electrical failure in a C177RG...
>
>
> Same thing happened way back when while I was working on my CFII. The instructor was left seat and flying and I noticed
> that the radios were dark. I wondered what he did, and then mentioned it. Fortunately for us it was day VFR, so we just
> flew on in to the [airport traffic area] tower and watched for the light gun signals. Steady green and we landed. As we
> rolled off the runway we went over an expansion joint that jostled the plane, and the power came back on. Turned out
> after days of troubleshooting there was in intermittent contact in one of the electrical connectors...
>
> What was the problem with your bird?

Failed voltage regulator, so the battery wasn't charging.

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 2, 11:08 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
> > "B A R R Y" > wrote in messagenews:i6uin3daep6btrf2u8503vftq61r8umb0r@4ax .com...
> >> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
> >> wrote:
> >>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
> >>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
> >> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>
> > Exactly!
>
> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
> emergency? :-))
>

Only if the flaps extend :-)))

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Jan 2, 11:08 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in messagenews:i6uin3daep6btrf2u8503vftq61r8umb0r@4ax .com...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>> Exactly!
>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>> emergency? :-))
>>
>
> Only if the flaps extend :-)))
>
> Cheers
That's true; a magnificent example of inverse application :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 2, 11:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On 1 Jan, 17:14, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Roy Smith wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > >> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
> > >> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no
> > >> flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a
> > >> no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as
> > >> required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over
> > >> the aspects of no flap landings with every student.
> > >> I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the
> > >> student must be completely familiar with before solo.
>
> > > The issue with no flaps landings is not that the landing itself is an
> > > emergency, but that the pilot should recognize that the flaps didn't extend
> > > and adjust his plan accordingly. And understand the performance
> > > implications.
>
> > Like many CFI's who came up during my period, (old people :-) I much
> > preferred to teach no flap landings to students as BOTH a possible
> > emergency AND an option that could be used by a good pilot who for a
> > viable and safe reason wanted to land long for a far end turnoff on an
> > exceptionally long runway for example.
> > Many of the airplanes we flew as trainers had no flaps; i.e. Cubs,
> > Colts, etc. You learned early on in these airplanes to fly the approach
> > properly and with no "devices" to help you control the landing speed.
> > These airplanes are still in use today and in many cases are priced low
> > enough that many students becoming aircraft owners for the first time
> > will end up purchasing an aircraft with no flaps. I personally know two
> > pilots who own a J3 and a Piper Colt; each have no flaps.
>
> > Flaps and their use are VERY aircraft specific. In some airplanes a POH
> > might define a no flap landing as an emergency. Others simply alter the
> > approach profile a bit. In the T38 Talon for example, (I use this as the
> > airplane is extremely high performance and landing cfg is critical for
> > the Talon) the procedure for a no flap landing is to add 15kts to the
> > normal landing speed...period! No big deal at all.
>
> > Landing a normal GA airplane with no flaps should not pose a good pilot
> > any problems at all, and training should reflect this.
>
> > The bottom line is that instructors should teach landings in a way that
> > defines every one of them as a unique experience dealing with a unique
> > and ever changing dynamic. No two landings that a pilot will make during
> > an entire career will ever be exactly the same. Each landing carries its
> > own individual fingerprint.
> > No flaps can be an emergency landing or it can simply be a pilot's
> > option. Either way, the pilot should be on top of it and have each
> > individual landing planned based on current conditions existing for any
> > given instant in time that pertain to THAT landing.
>
> Hear hear.
> I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty
> conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see
> the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head. I
> think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float
> only prolong the agony.
> Having said that, any pilot should be able to fly his airplane in any
> reasonable configuration it might end up in and this should be taught
> as a matter of course. I did some instruction in Cherokees(most of my
> instruction was in Cubs) and found the flaps were confusing the issue
> when the students were learning landings. I opted to do most of them
> flapless and this porved quite productive. the problem was, none of
> the other instructors were teaching this and it was off the page for
> the school, so I kept it to a minimum.

In the 172 POH it says that minimum flap setting should be used
(consistemt with runway length) in strong crosswinds. I think control
surface authority is what is being sought here.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Jan 1, 8:35 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> In the 172 POH it says that minimum flap setting should be used
> (consistemt with runway length) in strong crosswinds. I think control
> surface authority is what is being sought here.

In a crosswind, the wind vector is larger at lower aircraft
speeds, so a higher landing speed reduces the relative wind angle and
makes the initial touchdown more controllable. The thing to remember
is that the flight isn't over until the airplane is tied down, so be
wide awake in the rollout and use all the controls to manage the
airplane. Like LOTS of aileron into the crosswind.

Dan

[Barry]

>> In the 172 POH it says that minimum flap setting should be used
>> (consistemt with runway length) in strong crosswinds. I think control
>> surface authority is what is being sought here.
>
> In a crosswind, the wind vector is larger at lower aircraft
> speeds, so a higher landing speed reduces the relative wind angle and
> makes the initial touchdown more controllable. The thing to remember
> is that the flight isn't over until the airplane is tied down, so be
> wide awake in the rollout and use all the controls to manage the
> airplane. Like LOTS of aileron into the crosswind.

Other advantages of using partial flaps in a strong crosswind:

- Higher pitch attitude on approach, so flare is easier - not as much pitch
change required

- Plane is already configured for a go around if needed. Related to this -
less drag means faster response to throttle if needed in the flare to counter
a gust.

[DaveB]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:02:47 -0400, Dave
> wrote:

>OK, so I am missing something..
>
>In large , more complex aircraft, I can see the difficulty landing
>without flaps.
>
>But in a 172 or a Warrior?
>
>.....with sufficient runway, and in strong winds, I sometimes prefer
>no flaps.
>
>My Warrior POH indicates flaps are to be used as needed, no flap
>landings are not indicated as requiring an emergency procedure...
>
>In training aircraft?
>
>Dave
>
>
I was thinking the same thing, in a PA28-140 anyway,was like a 50-50
with me




Daveb

[[email protected]]

> I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty
> conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see
> the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head. I
> think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float
> only prolong the agony.

Do large jets ever land without flaps for any reason? I have never
seen big jets landing without flaps.. so I have often wondered if it
is something not recommended.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> That is amazing. The only emergency associated with flaps is asymmetric
> deployment! :-)

So perhaps that is what he was shooting for. An asymmetrical deployment,
followed by a no flap landing.

Well, maybe? <<g>>
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
et:

> Hilton wrote:
>> Dudley wrote:
>>> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another
>>> procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no
>>> flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects
>>> of a no flap landing that are very different from a landing using
>>> "flaps as required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap
>>> landings and go over the aspects of no flap landings with every
>>> student. I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply
>>> something the student must be completely familiar with before solo.
>>
>> I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we
>> had a total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him
>> hold a flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a
>> glassy water landing - worked perfectly!
>
> I had a complete electrical failure in a C177RG at night on the way
> from Duluth to Minneapolis back in 2003. Not wanting to fly into
> either the Class B or the Mode C veil without radio contact, I elected
> to put down at an uncontrolled field north of the Cities. A buddy was
> flying a 182 on the same trip a mile or so ahead of me, so I got him
> on my handheld and told him the plan. He went in ahead of me, assuring
> the pilot-controlled runway lights got turned on and handling any
> radio comms that might be needed if any other traffic showed up, while
> I circled to make sure I got the gear down. Took a bit of pumping to
> get it locked - it was reassuring that the tiny amount of remaining
> power was enough to get a green light when it locked. So then it was
> just a matter of landing NORDO, no lights, no flaps, in the dark. What
> fun! I was sure glad I had practiced all of those, albeit not all at
> once.
>
> My buddy was waiting on the ramp and said the only thing he saw as I
> came in was the runway edge lights blinking out as I rolled past them.
>

Mm, that's a good adventure. I don't remember readig about it before 1

Bertie

[Brian[_1_]]

<snip>
> * *It is amazing how attitudes change over time and how certain flying
> procedures become part of our culture.
>
> * *If I recall correctly, it was some time back in the 70's when some FAA
> bureaucrat made a PTS change decreeing that a normal landing was to be with full
> flaps. *Before that, flap use was taught as something that was much more at the
> pilot's option. *The change caused quite a furor at the time. *Some instructors
> thought that full flap landings were much too advanced for mere student pilots!
>
> Vaughn


My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The
thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not
teaching these pilots to fly
single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as
a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a
737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap
landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as
they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient
method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this
may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40
degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier
biggest customers were these flight schools)

The problem comes when these pilots decide they want to teach General
Avation pilots to fly single engine airplanes. They will often tend to
teach they way they were taught. These instructors may start teaching
their students to fly 172's like it was a 737 and we see things
transfered from the 737 to the c-172 that really don't apply to the
C-172. For the pilot training to fly small single engine airplanes
they really should learn to use the flap as needed instead as just a
checklist item.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> On 1 Jan, 17:14, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply
>>>>>> another procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering
>>>>>> about a no flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there
>>>>>> are aspects of a no flap landing that are very different from a
>>>>>> landing using "flaps as required", so all CFI's should demonstrate
>>>>>> no flap landings and go over the aspects of no flap landings with
>>>>>> every student. I don't treat this situation as an emergency;
>>>>>> simply something the student must be completely familiar with
>>>>>> before solo.
>>>>> The issue with no flaps landings is not that the landing itself is
>>>>> an emergency, but that the pilot should recognize that the flaps
>>>>> didn't extend and adjust his plan accordingly. And understand the
>>>>> performance implications.
>>>> Like many CFI's who came up during my period, (old people :-) I much
>>>> preferred to teach no flap landings to students as BOTH a possible
>>>> emergency AND an option that could be used by a good pilot who for a
>>>> viable and safe reason wanted to land long for a far end turnoff on
>>>> an exceptionally long runway for example.
>>>> Many of the airplanes we flew as trainers had no flaps; i.e. Cubs,
>>>> Colts, etc. You learned early on in these airplanes to fly the
>>>> approach properly and with no "devices" to help you control the
>>>> landing speed. These airplanes are still in use today and in many
>>>> cases are priced low enough that many students becoming aircraft
>>>> owners for the first time will end up purchasing an aircraft with no
>>>> flaps. I personally know two pilots who own a J3 and a Piper Colt;
>>>> each have no flaps.
>>>>
>>>> Flaps and their use are VERY aircraft specific. In some airplanes a
>>>> POH might define a no flap landing as an emergency. Others simply
>>>> alter the approach profile a bit. In the T38 Talon for example, (I
>>>> use this as the airplane is extremely high performance and landing
>>>> cfg is critical for the Talon) the procedure for a no flap landing
>>>> is to add 15kts to the normal landing speed...period! No big deal at
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> Landing a normal GA airplane with no flaps should not pose a good
>>>> pilot any problems at all, and training should reflect this.
>>>>
>>>> The bottom line is that instructors should teach landings in a way
>>>> that defines every one of them as a unique experience dealing with a
>>>> unique and ever changing dynamic. No two landings that a pilot will
>>>> make during an entire career will ever be exactly the same. Each
>>>> landing carries its own individual fingerprint.
>>>> No flaps can be an emergency landing or it can simply be a pilot's
>>>> option. Either way, the pilot should be on top of it and have each
>>>> individual landing planned based on current conditions existing for
>>>> any given instant in time that pertain to THAT landing.
>>>>
>>> Hear hear.
>>> I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty
>>> conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see
>>> the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head.
>>> I think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float
>>> only prolong the agony.
>>> Having said that, any pilot should be able to fly his airplane in any
>>> reasonable configuration it might end up in and this should be taught
>>> as a matter of course. I did some instruction in Cherokees(most of my
>>> instruction was in Cubs) and found the flaps were confusing the issue
>>> when the students were learning landings. I opted to do most of them
>>> flapless and this porved quite productive. the problem was, none of
>>> the other instructors were teaching this and it was off the page for
>>> the school, so I kept it to a minimum.
>>> Bertie
>> I'm short enough that even sitting on a seat chute, in the Mustang, I
>> lowered 20 degrees of flap on downwind just to see over the damn nose
>> :-))
>
>
> Doesn't adjust vertically? I would have assumed it followed just about
> every other US military airplane of the period and had a vertically
> adjustable seat and horizontal rudder pedals.
>
>
> Bertie
>
> Bertie
>
Oh the 51 had adjustments of sorts for both the seat and the pedals. The
seat had two pins you could adjust with a lever on the right side of the
seat in vertical mode only. There were nine holes you could set the seat
for but the damn things always got hung up and were a royal pain in the
butt to deal with.
The pedals could be adjusted back and forwards by hitting a lever on the
inboard side of each pedal and matching the locking pins on each side to
get them together and straight. Mine were in close to me as I needed to
know I had a full throw for rolls as well as on takeoff.
All in all, they weren't enough for my 5'6" frame. The truth is I didn't
use a seat chute. I was always leary of the 28 foot military canopy as a
means of getting me down with a reasonable descent rate if I needed to
use it and besides, I liked the back pack I had better anyway. Always
thought that if I had to get out, the scenario would be a pull from
somewhere on the deck where something went wrong to an altitude where I
could go over the side. If that happened to me, I didn't want a seat
pack getting hung up on the canopy crank on the right side or the
throttle quadrant on the left, so hence the back pack :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Barry]

> My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
> fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The
> thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not
> teaching these pilots to fly single pilot single engine airplanes.

Good point. I once checked out in a Piper Arrow a pilot who had been trained
at a place like that. He extended one notch of flaps before the landing gear,
because that's the way they do it in big airplanes. But it didn't make any
sense in the Arrow, as the max speed for gear extension is 150 mph, but for
flaps is only 125.

[F. Baum]

On Jan 1, 10:05*pm, wrote:
>
> Do large jets ever land without flaps for any reason? I have never
> seen big jets landing without flaps.. so I have often wondered if it
> is something not recommended.

Large jets never land without flaps. There are backup systems for the
flaps and LEDs in the event of a failure.
FB

[F. Baum]

On Jan 1, 10:48*pm, Brian > wrote:
>
> My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
> fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The
> thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not
> teaching these pilots to fly
> single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as
> a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a
> 737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap
> landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as
> they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient
> method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this
> may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40
> degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier
> biggest customers were these flight schools)
>
This procedure would be incorrect. About 99% of landings in a 737 are
done at flaps 30. Full flap is rarely used.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Brian > wrote in
:

> <snip>
>> * *It is amazing how attitudes change over time and how certain
>> flying
>
>> procedures become part of our culture.
>>
>> * *If I recall correctly, it was some time back in the 70's when some
> FAA
>> bureaucrat made a PTS change decreeing that a normal landing was to
>> be wit
> h full
>> flaps. *Before that, flap use was taught as something that was much
>> more
> at the
>> pilot's option. *The change caused quite a furor at the time. *Some
>> in
> structors
>> thought that full flap landings were much too advanced for mere
>> student pi
> lots!
>>
>> Vaughn
>
>
> My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
> fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The
> thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not
> teaching these pilots to fly
> single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as
> a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a
> 737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap
> landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as
> they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient
> method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this
> may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40
> degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier
> biggest customers were these flight schools)
>
> The problem comes when these pilots decide they want to teach General
> Avation pilots to fly single engine airplanes. They will often tend to
> teach they way they were taught. These instructors may start teaching
> their students to fly 172's like it was a 737 and we see things
> transfered from the 737 to the c-172 that really don't apply to the
> C-172. For the pilot training to fly small single engine airplanes
> they really should learn to use the flap as needed instead as just a
> checklist item.
>

Absolutely true and it is getting to be a bigger problem all the time.
Even guys who are moving on to large aircraft are being cheated, IMO


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Jan 1, 10:05*pm, wrote:
>
> Do large jets ever land without flaps for any reason? I have never
> seen big jets landing without flaps.. so I have often wondered if it
> is something not recommended.

Not only is this not recommended, it is not allowed for a number of
reasons. First, the clean speed on most airliners is between 220 and
250 KTS, you would never fit into the pattern at these speeds and if
you were to touch down this fast you would use more runway than many
airports have, not to mention melting the fuse plugs trying to get the
thing stopped. Another biggie is that you only get 9 to 11 degrees of
pitch during flare before you get a tailstike. This is extreemly easy
to exeed without flaps. Even with 15 degrees of flap you can bottom
out the thrust reversers on several models of the Boeings.Reduced flap
settings also have a dramatic effect on the Quick Turn Around limits.
The brake tempurature has to be below a certain value before we can
begin a takeoff roll (To assure enough brake energy in the event of an
RTO). Some jets have a brake temp gauge, Boeing uses a graph that
takes into account HW/TW, RWY slope, landing wieght,temp and the flap
setting. The lower the flap setting, the longer you have to wait for
the brakes to cool and this can (And does in the summertime)
ocasoinaly result in a late push.
FB

[Michael[_1_]]

On Dec 30 2007, 9:06*pm, "Kobra" > wrote:
> First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
> in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. *I didn't notice they had not
> deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. *They I remembered
> out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
> difficult then ever before. *I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
> basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
> realize that their flaps didn't come out! *THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"

This is going to be long and rambling, so bear with me.

Those are the same pilots who believe they can never land gear up.
Actually, there are pilots who will certainly never land gear up.
They are the ones who only fly fixed gear airplanes. And then there
are the ones who believe they can't groundloop. The only ones who are
right about this are the ones who don't fly taildraggers. Accidents
can happen to all of us, because none of us are perfect.

The situation is actually very similar when it comes to inadvertent
flaps-up and gear-up landings. Gear and flaps both have aerodynamic
effects when extended/retracted. A very refined airplane (think later-
model Bonanza) will have minimal (if any) trim change with extension/
retraction (this is nice because it reduces pilot workload on
approach), but with most planes you will notice a trim change. And no
matter what, there will be changes in the aural/visual/tactile cues
(the plane will sound different, something will look different, and it
will feel different) as well as a change in power required to maintain
a given speed and glideslope. And yet, year in and year out, pilots
manage to land gear up. I'm sure they land flaps up even more often,
but mostly that doesn't cause any damage so nobody talks about it.

Which brings us to the one (and only) difference between landing flaps
up and gear up. Gear up is expensive, every time. Flaps up is
actually more likely to be fatal (as in, you get too slow in a turn)
but most of the time it costs nothing at all except some extra runway,
which is free. That's it. That's why we hammer on gear up
procedurally and mostly ignore flaps up. Thing is, nobody is perfect
procedurally. I note by your signature that you are flying a
retract. Realize that since your cues for handling are not so well
developed, you are at greater risk than someone whose feel for the
plane is better for gearing it up. However, it's probably nothing
more than being low time, so don't worry about it, it will come.

To understand why you landed flaps up without realizing it, look into
inadvertent gear up landings.

There are two extremes in the pilot population. On one extreme are
those who are 'aware' of everything that goes on around them. On the
other extreme are those who are 'procedural' - they will go through
the motions as they did in training and not notice that things are not
really working out. Of course those are extremes; most pilots fall
somewhere in the middle.

As an instructor, it's pretty easy to tell what sort of pilot you are
dealing with. Whenever I check someone out in a retract with
electrically powered gear, I will always pull the gear circuit breaker
when he's not looking. Sometimes hilarity ensues - as when I have to
call a go-around or missed approach. Sometimes the student catches me
at it.

In an ideal world, the pilot who is 'aware' will realize the gear
isn't coming down because the plane won't slow down/get down, or he
has to pull the power too far back, or it's too 'pitchy' or whatnot.
I've seen that happen quite a bit. That's how the students have
caught me. They would realize something was wrong, then realize what
it probably was, and THEN check the gear indicator. I've also had it
happen to me a couple of times (realize I have 1300+ hours in
retracts). For whatever reason (I got distracted by traffic, for
example), in my normal flying I've forgotten to put the gear down
where I normally do. I always figured it out on final because the
plane did not behave the way it was supposed to - I was pulling the
power too far back and not slowing down properly. THEN I checked the
lever and indicator.

Now ideally a 'procedural' pilot will also catch this. A GUMPS check,
a 'three green on final' check, something. I suppose it must happen
sometimes, but I've never seen it. Never have I seen a student catch
the problem procedurally. I have seen a student say three green when
the lights were most emphatically not green. I've seen a student say
"three green and one in the mirror" when there was nothing but closed
gear doors in the mirror and no green lights at all. I find it very
unfortunate that the FAA forbids doing this (pulling breakers) on
checkrides, thus assuring that most CFI's won't do this with their
students.

One of the things that insurance companies look for when you step into
a retract is total time. A guy with 1000 total hours, all of them in
fixed gear airplanes, will have relatively little problem getting
insured in something like a Bonanza. A guy with 100 total hours may
find himself uninsurable at any price - and having 10 of those hours
in an Arrow won't likely make any difference. That's because
insurance companies know the score - hours don't guarantee that a
pilot will become aware of his aircraft and environment, but lack of
hours nearly guarantees that he won't.

> Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
> inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. *That is not
> possible. *I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
> were fully retracted.

See, this is what I am talking about. First, you figured out that
something was wrong (awareness). THEN you checked procedurally.
That's how I've always seen it happen - never the other way around.
So why did you figure it out this time but not when it happened to
you? One, you had it happen to you before so you were more primed for
it. Some say experience is what lets you recognize the mistake the
second time you make it. Two, you were not flying the plane so you
had more mental 'cycles' left over for thinking. One of the things
that happens as you get more hours is that more things become
automatic, and you find easier, less workload-intesive ways to do
things - which frees up cycles. That's where awareness comes from -
having spare cycles to think about stuff.

So when do you have spare cycles? Well, you usually have some in
cruise. Once you get used to noticing stuff in cruise (even a 50 hour
pilot has enough cycles left over in cruise to notice stuff) you get
in the habit of doing it all the time.

One of the reasons I am so down on these programs that take you from
zero time to CFI/CFII/MEI in 300 hours is because they don't give you
near enough opportunity to just be with the airplane - to just fly
somewhere. Instead, you are always cramming new procedures, new
checklists, new this, new that - and all of it procedurally (because
it's the only way to do it in so few hours). You still make mistakes
and forget stuff, of course - but you don't really learn from them.
It's all seen as failure to follow the correct procedure - and of
course it is, but you have to realize that everyone is going to do
that sometimes, and the more procedures and checklists you run, the
more likely you are to miss some item. The solution is not more
checklists and procedures - what is needed is to develop what we used
to call in skydiving instruction 'air awareness' - and what might best
be called situational awareness. But that's going to take time, and
it requires unstructured time. Ever wonder why you could get every
fixed wing certificate and rating by 250 hours (less if Part 141) but
the ATP requires 1500 and IFR PIC under Part 135 requires 1200? Well,
that's the logic, and it's somewhat sound.

Now of course awareness is not perfect either (which is why I don't
advocate throwing away checklists) and with enough distraction anyone
can miss anything. When I was doing recurrent training and flying a
single engine partial panel ILS with some other failures and twists
thrown in, I forgot to put the gear down (I caught it when I pulled
the power back to land and the gear horn went off - and the instructor
called the go around at that point). One time on a partial panel
single engine circling NDB, I forgot to put down the flaps (the
instructor just let me do it - there was enough runway). With enough
other stuff being abnormal, one more abnormal may not show up. This
is where a checklist may really save you (or not - if it gets that
busy, you may not have the time for it).

> I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
> in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
> three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided.

Some level of distraction will be enough for anyone some of the time.
I've managed to set up a 15000+ hour ATP that way while doing his
recurrent training. On the other hand, mild distractions in the
pattern ought not to be enough that you don't notice that the flaps
have failed to work. It indicates that you need to get more in tune
with your airplane. So go fly some more. Not train, fly. Go
somewhere. Enjoy the sight, sound, and feel of flying. Become one
with the airplane. Yeah, I know, it sounds more mystical that
practical, but trust me. This will work itself out.

Michael

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Michael > wrote:
> So go fly some more. Not train, fly. Go
> somewhere. Enjoy the sight, sound, and feel of flying. Become one
> with the airplane. Yeah, I know, it sounds more mystical that
> practical, but trust me. This will work itself out.

Thank you for an excellent post. Since getting my PPL this past spring
I've occasionally felt like some of my subsequent flying time was wasted
compared to before. In training I was always learning something new. And
truly, even after I passed the checkride, I think I've done a good job of
expanding my limits without becoming reckless, and I've definitely learned
a lot since then. But sometimes when I was up there just having a little
fun I'd think somewhere in the back of my head that maybe I could be doing
more, pushing more, learning more.

You've made me realize that this time is still valuable and still makes me
a better pilot even if I'm not consciously pushing my limits. I never
hesitated about going up and just having some fun but it's good to realize
that it's still valuable experience. Thanks!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Hilton]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
>
>> I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we had
>> a
>> total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him hold a
>> flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a glassy water
>> landing - worked perfectly!
>
> I'm confused -- if he was your student, why did you do the landing? Seems
> like a perfect opportunity for a "learning experience".

Good suggestion. However... We were at a towered airport with other planes
in the pattern, tower unaware of what was happening (but could probably
guess), etc. It was pretty funny on the downwind when I was wing-wagging to
indicate lost comm. Then suddenly I realized that it was night and we had
no lights! :) I treated it as an emergency, and in my judgement, it was
appropriate that we acted as a team and that we land safely. Think of the
student's learning experience as being in CRM.

Hilton

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 4:35 pm, Michael > wrote:

> Which brings us to the one (and only) difference between landing flaps
> up and gear up. Gear up is expensive, every time. Flaps up is
> actually more likely to be fatal (as in, you get too slow in a turn)
> but most of the time it costs nothing at all except some extra runway,
> which is free. That's it.

Unless you are landing on a minimal runway, as we often do
out here in the Canadian west. An inadvertent flaps-up landing can get
really messy at the far end, depending on the obstacles that might be
there. Tall grass, not so bad. Fence, gonna scratch the airplane some.
Trees, not good. Big trees, bad. Mud, gonna get the top of the
airplane really dirty and dented. Big rocks, very bad. Lots of scrap
metal and maybe scrap people. Water, well...I hope you survive long
enough to get out of the airplane.
So pay attention to what the airplane is telling you.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jan 2, 9:15 pm, wrote:
> On Jan 2, 4:35 pm, Michael > wrote:
>
> > Which brings us to the one (and only) difference between landing flaps
> > up and gear up. Gear up is expensive, every time. Flaps up is
> > actually more likely to be fatal (as in, you get too slow in a turn)
> > but most of the time it costs nothing at all except some extra runway,
> > which is free. That's it.
>
> Unless you are landing on a minimal runway, as we often do
> out here in the Canadian west. An inadvertent flaps-up landing can get
> really messy at the far end, depending on the obstacles that might be
> there.

Not really, you just need to learn how to land better,
making use of flare and ground effect.
Landing with zero flaps, needs a tricky extended flare
and once the tires are on the runway, keep the nose up,
with pitch control to the elevator, that way the entire
main wing operates as an air brake.
Be very gentle on wheel braking control because that
will lower the nose, and you want the nose as high
as possible, while rolling.

Once the nose falls, it's hard to get it up because of
the relation of the CM to the wheel contact point on
the ground. At a high AOA, the CM is pretty close
to the vertical location of the wheel contact point,
and the elevator is effective.

The key is to understand the wheel contact point in
relation to the CM. Most A/C with tricycle gear are
designed to keep the weight on the mains and keep
the forward lightly loaded.
Ken

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-01 21:48:18 -0800, Brian > said:

> <snip>
>> * *It is amazing how attitudes change over time and how certain flying
>
>> procedures become part of our culture.
>>
>> * *If I recall correctly, it was some time back in the 70's when some
> FAA
>> bureaucrat made a PTS change decreeing that a normal landing was to be wit
> h full
>> flaps. *Before that, flap use was taught as something that was much more
> at the
>> pilot's option. *The change caused quite a furor at the time. *Some in
> structors
>> thought that full flap landings were much too advanced for mere student pi
> lots!
>>
>> Vaughn
>
>
> My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
> fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The
> thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not
> teaching these pilots to fly
> single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as
> a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a
> 737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap
> landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as
> they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient
> method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this
> may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40
> degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier
> biggest customers were these flight schools)

I have not observed this. The flight academies teach you to follow the
checklist that comes in the POH, not fly a 172 as if it was a 737. If
they taught you to fly the 172 like a 737, they would teach crosswind
landings differently. So I question your whole premise and the
conclusions that follow from it.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-01 14:08:09 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:

> Blueskies wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
> emergency? :-))

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am just unlucky, but I have had several flap
failures in a Cessna 172. It never seemed like an emergency to me -- at
most, an annoyance.

One thing I do when the flaps fail is check to see if my radios are
still working, just to make sure I don't have a power failure.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-01 18:26:04 -0800, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> said:

> Barry wrote:
>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>
>> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>>
>> EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.
>>
>> DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger
>> and of requiring immediate assistance.
>>
>> URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely
>> but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
>>
>> So I would say that the inability to extend flaps would be considered an
>> emergency only if it puts you in serious or imminent danger, or causes you to
>> be concerned about safety.
>
>
> I would call it no more than an annoyance unless I have to stuff the airplane
> into a really short strip. Emergency? That examiner has to be kidding.

He calls it an emergency because that is where a flap failure is in the
PTS. It is in the "Emergency Procedures" section. I doubt very much
that the examiner thinks it is really an emergency.

OTOH, people do manage to turn non-emergencies into emergencies. Every
now and then you hear of someone who smashes up a perfectly flyable
airplane simply because they managed to spear a June bug with the pitot
tube, or a door popped open in flight, or something minor like that.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-01 15:04:33 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:

> B A R R Y wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:09 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>>> emergency? :-))
>>
>> His exam focus was more about how flaps alter the landing than an
>> emergency.
>> The only "flap emergency" I've ever heard of belonged to a Musketeer
>> Sport who parks behind us. He kicked out the first notch, only to
>> have the right flap fall completely off. <G>
>
> Now THAT would be an attention getter for the average Sunday pilot in a
> big hurry :-))

One day I went out to preflight a Cessna 172 and the right wing flap
was folded up like a taco. The solo student who had flown the plane
previously claimed that he had not noticed anything wrong, but that he
had heard a "grinding noise," so he did a few more touch and goes and
then quit early. The flap had jumped the tracks and folded up in
flight. It appears that the student made three more landings after the
flap folded up. For the record, he was not my student.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[[email protected]]

On Dec 31 2007, 2:39*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
> > "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> > news:2a8f80a4-d43b-4daf-b9c8-> Don't you have to demonstrate flapless, short
> > field and normal
> >> landings as part of you certificate?
>
> > * *Not flapless.
>
> I had to.

Even if you don't have to demonstrate it, you ought to have been
trained in how to do it.

I was wondering: in the aircraft of the OP, do the flaps not make a
noise when deploying? After reading the post, I realized that I have
typically relied on three things to know the flaps are down: the sound
of them deploying, the change in pitch that comes with flap
deployment, and, as I get out toward turning base, I'm looking back to
check my position in relation to the numbers. When I do that I see the
flaps down.

That should also work with most low wings, no? I guess there might be
some flap designs where you couldn't see that on small GA aircraft.

Thanks for the post as it makes me realize I have not paid enough
attention to this critical operation. Since flaps have always deployed
when I asked them to, I haven't thought about double checking. Far
from calling the OP guy a moron, I got to thank him for raising my
awareness on this.

Piloting is complex, and as Bertie points out, we all f0k up. On my
checkride what the examiner was looking for was: identify the error
and correct.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student C J Campbell > wrote:
> OTOH, people do manage to turn non-emergencies into emergencies. Every
> now and then you hear of someone who smashes up a perfectly flyable
> airplane simply because they managed to spear a June bug with the pitot
> tube, or a door popped open in flight, or something minor like that.

I recall an unfortunate incident in which a poorly-placed water bag had
somewhat reduced my right aileron authority, and I thought I could get it
out of the way in the middle of the takeoff. The aircraft quickly
disabused me of this notion, and I recovered without breaking anything,
but it made for an embarrassing show. (Why is it that you can be
absolutely certain that someone is watching when you screw it up, and
absolutely certain that nobody was around to see it when you make a
greaser landing?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Maxwell]

"Michael Ash" > wrote in message
...
>
> I recall an unfortunate incident in which a poorly-placed water bag had
> somewhat reduced my right aileron authority, and I thought I could get it
> out of the way in the middle of the takeoff. The aircraft quickly
> disabused me of this notion, and I recovered without breaking anything,
> but it made for an embarrassing show. (Why is it that you can be
> absolutely certain that someone is watching when you screw it up, and
> absolutely certain that nobody was around to see it when you make a
> greaser landing?
>

It usually has nothing to do with what the actually see, and everything to
do with what they choose to recall.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-01-01 15:04:33 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:09 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>>>> emergency? :-))
>>>
>>> His exam focus was more about how flaps alter the landing than an
>>> emergency.
>>> The only "flap emergency" I've ever heard of belonged to a Musketeer
>>> Sport who parks behind us. He kicked out the first notch, only to
>>> have the right flap fall completely off. <G>
>>
>> Now THAT would be an attention getter for the average Sunday pilot in
>> a big hurry :-))
>
> One day I went out to preflight a Cessna 172 and the right wing flap was
> folded up like a taco. The solo student who had flown the plane
> previously claimed that he had not noticed anything wrong, but that he
> had heard a "grinding noise," so he did a few more touch and goes and
> then quit early. The flap had jumped the tracks and folded up in flight.
> It appears that the student made three more landings after the flap
> folded up. For the record, he was not my student.
>
Kind of makes you wonder who's teaching people to fly in such a way that
the end result would be a student who hears something unusual in his
airplane and takes off without knowing or obviously caring what it is.
Unbelievable!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-01-01 14:08:09 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which
>>>>> would
>>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly!
>>>
>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>> emergency? :-))
>
> Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am just unlucky, but I have had several flap
> failures in a Cessna 172. It never seemed like an emergency to me -- at
> most, an annoyance.
>
> One thing I do when the flaps fail is check to see if my radios are
> still working, just to make sure I don't have a power failure.
>
We sat and watched two guys land a transient 172 one day each one
pushing out the door on his side of the airplane on final.
We asked them why they were doing this and they said the flap motor was
broken and they wanted to fly that day. They were using the doors as a
speed brake. :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[David Lesher]

Dudley Henriques > writes:

>Flaps and their use are VERY aircraft specific. In some airplanes a POH
>might define a no flap landing as an emergency.

I recall a Usenet post from a crew member in a Buff that, while over
Illinois, lost hydraulics for both flaps and brakes. Ooops.

They got a refill and made it to Edwards lake bed before dark.
They coasted a long time before stopping...


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 4, 6:17 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > On 2008-01-01 14:08:09 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
> >> Blueskies wrote:
> >>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
> >>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>
> >>> Exactly!
>
> >> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
> >> emergency? :-))
>
> > Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am just unlucky, but I have had several flap
> > failures in a Cessna 172. It never seemed like an emergency to me -- at
> > most, an annoyance.
>
> > One thing I do when the flaps fail is check to see if my radios are
> > still working, just to make sure I don't have a power failure.
>
> We sat and watched two guys land a transient 172 one day each one
> pushing out the door on his side of the airplane on final.
> We asked them why they were doing this and they said the flap motor was
> broken and they wanted to fly that day. They were using the doors as a
> speed brake. :-))
>

Sounds like a reasonable idea -if one thinks an extra 10k landing
speed is going to be a BIG problem for the field. On the other hand,
I'd be worried anout the disrupted airflow over the elevator. What do
you think?

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:17 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-01 14:08:09 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
>>>>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>>> Exactly!
>>>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>>>> emergency? :-))
>>> Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am just unlucky, but I have had several flap
>>> failures in a Cessna 172. It never seemed like an emergency to me -- at
>>> most, an annoyance.
>>> One thing I do when the flaps fail is check to see if my radios are
>>> still working, just to make sure I don't have a power failure.
>> We sat and watched two guys land a transient 172 one day each one
>> pushing out the door on his side of the airplane on final.
>> We asked them why they were doing this and they said the flap motor was
>> broken and they wanted to fly that day. They were using the doors as a
>> speed brake. :-))
>>
>
> Sounds like a reasonable idea -if one thinks an extra 10k landing
> speed is going to be a BIG problem for the field. On the other hand,
> I'd be worried anout the disrupted airflow over the elevator. What do
> you think?
>
> Cheers

This was the gist of the discussion at the flight office that afternoon.
The doors are indeed inline and this could indeed cause a problem.
Needless to say we mentioned it to them before they left to go home.
I think we "sold them" when we pointed out that both runways...ours and
theirs....were more than long enough for no flap landings without all
the additional fuss associated with the doors :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Maxwell > wrote:
> "Michael Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I recall an unfortunate incident in which a poorly-placed water bag had
>> somewhat reduced my right aileron authority, and I thought I could get it
>> out of the way in the middle of the takeoff. The aircraft quickly
>> disabused me of this notion, and I recovered without breaking anything,
>> but it made for an embarrassing show. (Why is it that you can be
>> absolutely certain that someone is watching when you screw it up, and
>> absolutely certain that nobody was around to see it when you make a
>> greaser landing?
>
> It usually has nothing to do with what the actually see, and everything to
> do with what they choose to recall.

No doubt.

There's an amusing ending to this as well. I had thought nobody noticed
it, since nobody said anything, until I got in the car with my friend to
go home. We started talking about our respective days at the airport and
he said, "Did you see that one guy on takeoff...?" I had to shamefacedly
admit that "that one guy" was actually me.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Michael Ash" > wrote

>>> I recall an unfortunate incident in which a poorly-placed water bag had
>>> somewhat reduced my right aileron authority, and I thought I could get
>>> it
>>> out of the way in the middle of the takeoff. The aircraft quickly
>>> disabused me of this notion, and I recovered without breaking anything,
>>> but it made for an embarrassing show. (Why is it that you can be
>>> absolutely certain that someone is watching when you screw it up, and
>>> absolutely certain that nobody was around to see it when you make a
>>> greaser landing?

I'm not up on glider operations, so maybe you can clue me in.

What is a water bag? Ballasting? Why would it have been laid on the
ailerons? How or why could it be forgotten? How big is it?

Thanks for taking the time to fill in a "motor head!" <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Stewart]

Morgans wrote:
> "Michael Ash" > wrote
>
>>>> I recall an unfortunate incident in which a poorly-placed water bag had
>>>> somewhat reduced my right aileron authority, and I thought I could get
>>>> it
>>>> out of the way in the middle of the takeoff. The aircraft quickly
>>>> disabused me of this notion, and I recovered without breaking anything,
>>>> but it made for an embarrassing show. (Why is it that you can be
>>>> absolutely certain that someone is watching when you screw it up, and
>>>> absolutely certain that nobody was around to see it when you make a
>>>> greaser landing?
>
> I'm not up on glider operations, so maybe you can clue me in.
>
> What is a water bag? Ballasting? Why would it have been laid on the
> ailerons? How or why could it be forgotten? How big is it?
>
> Thanks for taking the time to fill in a "motor head!" <g>

Inside the cabin between his leg and the stick?

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> What is a water bag? Ballasting? Why would it have been laid on the
>> ailerons? How or why could it be forgotten? How big is it?
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to fill in a "motor head!" <g>
>
> Inside the cabin between his leg and the stick?

Ahh, for some reason, I didn't think of that, if that was the problem!
--
Jim in NC

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Michael Ash" > wrote
>>
>>>>> I recall an unfortunate incident in which a poorly-placed water bag had
>>>>> somewhat reduced my right aileron authority, and I thought I could get
>>>>> it
>>>>> out of the way in the middle of the takeoff. The aircraft quickly
>>>>> disabused me of this notion, and I recovered without breaking anything,
>>>>> but it made for an embarrassing show. (Why is it that you can be
>>>>> absolutely certain that someone is watching when you screw it up, and
>>>>> absolutely certain that nobody was around to see it when you make a
>>>>> greaser landing?
>>
>> I'm not up on glider operations, so maybe you can clue me in.
>>
>> What is a water bag? Ballasting? Why would it have been laid on the
>> ailerons? How or why could it be forgotten? How big is it?
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to fill in a "motor head!" <g>
>
> Inside the cabin between his leg and the stick?

Sorry for being unclear. You're very close, it was actually between my leg
and the outer wall of the cabin.

The precise geometry of the situation actually helped cause my error. I
was flying a 1-26, an older, American-built metal glider with something of
an un-ergonomic cockpit. I'm a pretty big guy and I'm really crammed in
there: my legs nearly brush the instrument panel and my head is just an
inch or so from the canopy. Most importantly for this particular scenario,
my knees are right at stick-top height, and the full range of the stick is
large enough to bump my knees.

What happened was that over the course of my previous flying, I got used
to hitting my knees during the control check. Then on the day in question,
I bumped my right knee much sooner than I should have, but didn't notice
the difference. I had gotten into the bad habit of interpreting "knee hit"
as "full range of motion". Of course I noticed during the takeoff roll
when I was having trouble holding the left wing up, but I should have
either aborted the takeoff or lived with the problem until I could get to
a reasonable altitude.

I'm not sure what the lesson is in this one. Obviously dealing properly
with distractions is a big one: don't let a small problem divert your
attention and cause a big problem. I'm not sure how to prevent the error
which led to the original problem, though. Obviously I'll never make that
*particular* error again, but how can you help ensure that you don't start
using the wrong signal as confirmation of a checklist item, besides just
trying to pay more attention?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jan 3, 2:34 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Morgans wrote:
> >> "Michael Ash" > wrote
>
> >>>>> I recall an unfortunate incident in which a poorly-placed water bag had
> >>>>> somewhat reduced my right aileron authority, and I thought I could get
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> out of the way in the middle of the takeoff. The aircraft quickly
> >>>>> disabused me of this notion, and I recovered without breaking anything,
> >>>>> but it made for an embarrassing show. (Why is it that you can be
> >>>>> absolutely certain that someone is watching when you screw it up, and
> >>>>> absolutely certain that nobody was around to see it when you make a
> >>>>> greaser landing?
>
> >> I'm not up on glider operations, so maybe you can clue me in.
>
> >> What is a water bag? Ballasting? Why would it have been laid on the
> >> ailerons? How or why could it be forgotten? How big is it?
>
> >> Thanks for taking the time to fill in a "motor head!" <g>
>
> > Inside the cabin between his leg and the stick?
>
> Sorry for being unclear. You're very close, it was actually between my leg
> and the outer wall of the cabin.
>
> The precise geometry of the situation actually helped cause my error. I
> was flying a 1-26, an older, American-built metal glider with something of
> an un-ergonomic cockpit. I'm a pretty big guy and I'm really crammed in
> there: my legs nearly brush the instrument panel and my head is just an
> inch or so from the canopy. Most importantly for this particular scenario,
> my knees are right at stick-top height, and the full range of the stick is
> large enough to bump my knees.
>
> What happened was that over the course of my previous flying, I got used
> to hitting my knees during the control check. Then on the day in question,
> I bumped my right knee much sooner than I should have, but didn't notice
> the difference. I had gotten into the bad habit of interpreting "knee hit"
> as "full range of motion". Of course I noticed during the takeoff roll
> when I was having trouble holding the left wing up, but I should have
> either aborted the takeoff or lived with the problem until I could get to
> a reasonable altitude.
>
> I'm not sure what the lesson is in this one. Obviously dealing properly
> with distractions is a big one: don't let a small problem divert your
> attention and cause a big problem. I'm not sure how to prevent the error
> which led to the original problem, though. Obviously I'll never make that
> *particular* error again, but how can you help ensure that you don't start
> using the wrong signal as confirmation of a checklist item, besides just
> trying to pay more attention?
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

One of my favorite stupid things I did was rotate for
take-off and scared a gazillion birds out of the trees.
This runway had a groove cut into the trees, to get
out of.
Well, I'm looking at the *pretty* birds and instructor
suggests, "maybe we should fly underneath the
flock", before I thought of that.
But yeah, I shifted pitch down and went under the
flucking flock. Dang birds and spinning props is
an unhealthly combo for both parties.
Ken

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-03 09:13:40 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2008-01-01 15:04:33 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>
>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:09 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>>>>> emergency? :-))
>>>>
>>>> His exam focus was more about how flaps alter the landing than an
>>>> emergency.
>>>> The only "flap emergency" I've ever heard of belonged to a Musketeer
>>>> Sport who parks behind us. He kicked out the first notch, only to
>>>> have the right flap fall completely off. <G>
>>>
>>> Now THAT would be an attention getter for the average Sunday pilot in a
>>> big hurry :-))
>>
>> One day I went out to preflight a Cessna 172 and the right wing flap
>> was folded up like a taco. The solo student who had flown the plane
>> previously claimed that he had not noticed anything wrong, but that he
>> had heard a "grinding noise," so he did a few more touch and goes and
>> then quit early. The flap had jumped the tracks and folded up in
>> flight. It appears that the student made three more landings after the
>> flap folded up. For the record, he was not my student.
>>
> Kind of makes you wonder who's teaching people to fly in such a way
> that the end result would be a student who hears something unusual in
> his airplane and takes off without knowing or obviously caring what it
> is.
> Unbelievable!! :-))

Man, you would think he would at least have noticed something different
about the way the airplane flew!

However, if it makes you feel better, I remember his instructor having
a very loooong chat with him. Turned out the flaps had probably jumped
the track when he lowered them at 120 knots.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-01-03 09:13:40 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-01 15:04:33 -0800, Dudley Henriques >
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:09 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>>>>>> emergency? :-))
>>>>>
>>>>> His exam focus was more about how flaps alter the landing than an
>>>>> emergency.
>>>>> The only "flap emergency" I've ever heard of belonged to a Musketeer
>>>>> Sport who parks behind us. He kicked out the first notch, only to
>>>>> have the right flap fall completely off. <G>
>>>>
>>>> Now THAT would be an attention getter for the average Sunday pilot
>>>> in a big hurry :-))
>>>
>>> One day I went out to preflight a Cessna 172 and the right wing flap
>>> was folded up like a taco. The solo student who had flown the plane
>>> previously claimed that he had not noticed anything wrong, but that
>>> he had heard a "grinding noise," so he did a few more touch and goes
>>> and then quit early. The flap had jumped the tracks and folded up in
>>> flight. It appears that the student made three more landings after
>>> the flap folded up. For the record, he was not my student.
>>>
>> Kind of makes you wonder who's teaching people to fly in such a way
>> that the end result would be a student who hears something unusual in
>> his airplane and takes off without knowing or obviously caring what it
>> is.
>> Unbelievable!! :-))
>
> Man, you would think he would at least have noticed something different
> about the way the airplane flew!
>
> However, if it makes you feel better, I remember his instructor having a
> very loooong chat with him. Turned out the flaps had probably jumped the
> track when he lowered them at 120 knots.

Sounds like a lesson was in there somewhere for somebody.

Depending on the exact circumstances, I think I might have wanted a few
words with the instructor as well. This kind of judgment found post
incident in a student is cause for at least some concern in that direction.


--
Dudley Henriques

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-03 17:46:37 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2008-01-03 09:13:40 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>> On 2008-01-01 15:04:33 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>>
>>>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:09 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
>>>>>>> emergency? :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His exam focus was more about how flaps alter the landing than an
>>>>>> emergency.
>>>>>> The only "flap emergency" I've ever heard of belonged to a Musketeer
>>>>>> Sport who parks behind us. He kicked out the first notch, only to
>>>>>> have the right flap fall completely off. <G>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now THAT would be an attention getter for the average Sunday pilot in a
>>>>> big hurry :-))
>>>>
>>>> One day I went out to preflight a Cessna 172 and the right wing flap
>>>> was folded up like a taco. The solo student who had flown the plane
>>>> previously claimed that he had not noticed anything wrong, but that he
>>>> had heard a "grinding noise," so he did a few more touch and goes and
>>>> then quit early. The flap had jumped the tracks and folded up in
>>>> flight. It appears that the student made three more landings after the
>>>> flap folded up. For the record, he was not my student.
>>>>
>>> Kind of makes you wonder who's teaching people to fly in such a way
>>> that the end result would be a student who hears something unusual in
>>> his airplane and takes off without knowing or obviously caring what it
>>> is.
>>> Unbelievable!! :-))
>>
>> Man, you would think he would at least have noticed something different
>> about the way the airplane flew!
>>
>> However, if it makes you feel better, I remember his instructor having
>> a very loooong chat with him. Turned out the flaps had probably jumped
>> the track when he lowered them at 120 knots.
>
> Sounds like a lesson was in there somewhere for somebody.
>
> Depending on the exact circumstances, I think I might have wanted a few
> words with the instructor as well. This kind of judgment found post
> incident in a student is cause for at least some concern in that
> direction.

I have to agree. Unfortunately, I was a student myself at the time
(different instructor). Now those instructors are flying for the
airlines somewhere... Well, perhaps they have gained more wisdom with
maturity. Probably the kid who busted the flaps is flying for the
airlines somewhere.

Well, I don't want to get into criticizing other flight instructors. I
do that too often as it is, and it is healthy neither for me nor for
the profession.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:


> Well, I don't want to get into criticizing other flight instructors. I
> do that too often as it is, and it is healthy neither for me nor for the
> profession.
>
We'll have to get together some time and hash this one over a bit :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[karl mcgruber]

The Cessna A185F POH has this in the LIMITATIONS section:

FLAP LIMITATIONS

Approved Takeoff Range: 0 deg to 20 deg.
Approved Landing Range: 0 deg to 40 deg

So at least in a Cessna 185, a zero flap landing is never an emergency. In
fact, it is SOP for some conditions.

CJ, I'm not disagreeing with anything you posted. Just posting this for
general information. The Cessna 185 has the exact same wing as a 182. In
fact, my wings have attach brackets for a flap motor, although the 185 has
manual flaps.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:200801030718278930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2008-01-01 18:26:04 -0800, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> said:
>
>> Barry wrote:
>>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>
>>> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>>>
>>> EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.
>>>
>>> DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent
>>> danger
>>> and of requiring immediate assistance.
>>>
>>> URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring
>>> timely
>>> but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
>>>
>>> So I would say that the inability to extend flaps would be considered an
>>> emergency only if it puts you in serious or imminent danger, or causes
>>> you to
>>> be concerned about safety.
>>
>>
>> I would call it no more than an annoyance unless I have to stuff the
>> airplane
>> into a really short strip. Emergency? That examiner has to be kidding.
>
> He calls it an emergency because that is where a flap failure is in the
> PTS. It is in the "Emergency Procedures" section. I doubt very much that
> the examiner thinks it is really an emergency.
>
> OTOH, people do manage to turn non-emergencies into emergencies. Every now
> and then you hear of someone who smashes up a perfectly flyable airplane
> simply because they managed to spear a June bug with the pitot tube, or a
> door popped open in flight, or something minor like that.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-03 21:03:04 -0800, "karl mcgruber" <skywagon
> said:

>
> CJ, I'm not disagreeing with anything you posted. Just posting this for
> general information. The Cessna 185 has the exact same wing as a 182.
> In fact, my wings have attach brackets for a flap motor, although the
> 185 has manual flaps.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG

I didn't know that! Should have guessed, though.

For those who have not seen it, Karl's plane is a beautiful thing.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> For those who have not seen it, Karl's plane is a beautiful thing.

Glowing praise like that should have Karl posting a link, were we can all
ogle it!

Wait for it; here comes the link now....

Karl?? Karl? ... <g>
--
Jim in NC

[karl mcgruber]

Here's some pix:
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//n185kgfront.jpg
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//rainiercessna.jpg
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg0100__640x480_.jpg
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg0456__640x480_.jpg
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//sunjolearsinformation.jpg

Best,
Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>
>> For those who have not seen it, Karl's plane is a beautiful thing.
>
> Glowing praise like that should have Karl posting a link, were we can all
> ogle it!
>
> Wait for it; here comes the link now....
>
> Karl?? Karl? ... <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 3 Jan, 09:16, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 4:35 pm, Michael > wrote:
>
> > > Which brings us to the one (and only) difference between landing flaps
> > > up and gear up. *Gear up is expensive, every time. *Flaps up is
> > > actually more likely to be fatal (as in, you get too slow in a turn)
> > > but most of the time it costs nothing at all except some extra runway,
> > > which is free. *That's it.
>
> > * * * * *Unless you are landing on a minimal runway, as we often do
> > out here in the Canadian west. An inadvertent flaps-up landing can get
> > really messy at the far end, depending on the obstacles that might be
> > there.
>
> Not really, you just need to learn how to land better,
> making use of flare and ground effect.
> Landing with zero flaps, needs a tricky extended flare
> and once the tires are on the runway, keep the nose up,
> with pitch control to the elevator, that way the entire
> main wing operates as an air brake.
> Be very gentle on wheel braking control because that
> will lower the nose, and you want the nose as high
> as possible, while rolling.
>
> Once the nose falls, it's hard to get it up because of
> the relation of the CM to the wheel contact point on
> the ground. At a high AOA, the CM is pretty close
> to the vertical location of the wheel contact point,
> and the elevator is effective.
>
> The key is to understand the wheel contact point in
> relation to the CM. Most A/C with tricycle gear are
> designed to keep the weight on the mains and keep
> the forward lightly loaded.
> Ken



Good grief.


Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:18:27 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2008-01-01 18:26:04 -0800, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
><mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> said:
>
>> Barry wrote:
>>>> My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.
>>>
>>> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>>>
>>> EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.
>>>
>>> DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger
>>> and of requiring immediate assistance.
>>>
>>> URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely
>>> but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
>>>
>>> So I would say that the inability to extend flaps would be considered an
>>> emergency only if it puts you in serious or imminent danger, or causes you to
>>> be concerned about safety.
>>
>>
>> I would call it no more than an annoyance unless I have to stuff the airplane
>> into a really short strip. Emergency? That examiner has to be kidding.
>
>He calls it an emergency because that is where a flap failure is in the
>PTS. It is in the "Emergency Procedures" section. I doubt very much
>that the examiner thinks it is really an emergency.
As was said earlier, no flaps can be a bit of an inconvenience, or
normal, but a split flap condition can really add excitement to your
day. <:-)) They had an AD out for Bonanzas, Debonairs, and Barons for
this. Then someone managed to convince the FAA that even a split flap
condition in these is not an emergency although it might push the
adrenalin up there a bit. All of these planes have enough aileron
authority to overcome the split flap condition so they dropped the AD.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>OTOH, people do manage to turn non-emergencies into emergencies. Every
>now and then you hear of someone who smashes up a perfectly flyable
>airplane simply because they managed to spear a June bug with the pitot
>tube, or a door popped open in flight, or something minor like that.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"karl mcgruber" <skywagon > wrote in message
...
> Here's some pix:
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//n185kgfront.jpg
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//rainiercessna.jpg
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg0100__640x480_.jpg
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg0456__640x480_.jpg
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//sunjolearsinformation.jpg
Ahh, Karl, that last one is not a Cessna 185, I believe.

Or is that what you hope it will grow up to be? <g>

Nice 185, though. Thanks.
--
Jim in NC

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-05 05:53:09 -0800, "Morgans" > said:

>
> "karl mcgruber" <skywagon > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here's some pix:
>> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//n185kgfront.jpg
>> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//rainiercessna.jpg
>> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg0100__640x480_.jpg
>> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg0456__640x480_.jpg
>> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//sunjolearsinformation.jpg
> Ahh, Karl, that last one is not a Cessna 185, I believe.
>
> Or is that what you hope it will grow up to be? <g>
>
> Nice 185, though. Thanks.

No. The last one is Karl at work.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> No. The last one is Karl at work.

I suspected that.
--
Jim in NC