A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

flaps again



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old January 2nd 08, 05:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning, rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.student
Brian[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 379
Default flaps again

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


Ads
  #62  
Old January 2nd 08, 06:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,546
Default flaps again

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
  #63  
Old January 2nd 08, 12:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default flaps again

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 02:25:19 +0000, rotor&wing
wrote:


Ron Rosenfeld;588240 Wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:51:57 -0800 (PST),
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


You have a Mooney certified for Cat2 approaches?


There is a special procedure for category A aircraft used under Part 91.
There are separate certifications required for the pilot and the airplane.
And the pilot will only be certified in designated airplanes (not
designated make and model, but designated by N#).

It is not currently certified, but was some years ago. If I recall
correctly, the aircraft certifcation is good for two years; the pilot
certification (in that aircraft) is good for six months. The six month
check rides are taken with an FAA examiner (NOT a DE) and consist of both
an oral exam and also demonstrating two approaches to CAT II minimums
(100'DH), one with a missed approach, and one with a full stop landing.

The airplane is also checked by the FAA in order for it to be certified.

I had the certification for, oh, six or seven years. I have not bothered
renewing the certification for a while now.

Going through the process, including the IFR practice and flying with the
FAA twice a year, made me a better instrument pilot, in my opinion.


--ron
  #64  
Old January 2nd 08, 02:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning, rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.student
F. Baum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default flaps again

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

  #65  
Old January 2nd 08, 02:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning, rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.student
F. Baum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default flaps again

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.
  #66  
Old January 2nd 08, 03:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning, rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.student
F. Baum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default flaps again

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
  #67  
Old January 2nd 08, 11:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning, rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.student
Michael[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default flaps again

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
  #68  
Old January 3rd 08, 02:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default flaps again

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
  #69  
Old January 3rd 08, 03:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default flaps again

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


  #70  
Old January 3rd 08, 05:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning, rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default flaps again

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
flaps again Kobra Piloting 107 January 5th 08 04:31 PM
flaps Kobra[_4_] Piloting 84 July 16th 07 06:16 PM
flaps Kobra[_4_] Owning 85 July 16th 07 06:16 PM
Cowl Flaps N114RW Home Built 0 June 27th 07 09:25 PM
FLAPS skysailor Soaring 36 September 7th 05 05:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.