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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Jul 10, 6:51 am, Roy Smith wrote:
Then you should have gone around. Plan every approach to be a go-around, and only make the decision to land when you get to the threshold and everything is good. Exactly. Most landing accidents happen when things aren't coming together properly and the pilot insists on landing anyway. If this runway had been icy he'd likely have written the airplane off. Piper and Cessna took interesting divergent paths when they designed their airplanes. Piper decided they were going to use electric trim and manual flaps. Cessna decided on electric flaps and manual trim. In both cases, each manufacturer added one totally unnecessary electric system and thus saddled their owners with forever pouring money into fixing them. Maybe the high-wing design made it difficult to engineer a manual flap control linkage? Cessna originally built their singles with manual flaps. The 172 didn't get electric flaps until around 1967. The 180/185 never had them. Those airplanes could be landed really short, because the pilot could approach at minimum airspeed and dump the flaps instantly on touchdown and get lots of weight on the mains for braking. Electric flaps are too slow to retract. In any case, if it's not the breaker, if could be the actuator switch, the motor, one of the micro-switches that limit movement, or any of the wiring in between. Just bring it to your mechanic with your checkbook and let him put another kid through college :-) If It's what I think and the airplane has the preselector-type flap control, one of the microswitches on the lever follower is dead or disconnected. They do that. Dan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... "Kobra" wrote: snip From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken, the plane was not airworthy. Cite? Al G |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
IMHO, full flaps are called for on a normal landing...it is only when gusts
or crosswinds raise their ugly heads that lesse deflections should be used. The goal is minimum speed at touchdown, and you are depriving yourself of a huge energy sink. Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling. Bob Gardner "Kobra" wrote in message . .. Aviators, My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed until Sunday. On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming out of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that, man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell. The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or picked up a tailwind. I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp. On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened. Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on landing and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely or unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I notice that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change pitch or that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I just didn't catch the fact that no flaps came out. Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway. I took off and started to ponder the situation: No flaps No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no way could you see more than 3 miles) No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago) No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on landing) and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with my primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both during the day with a headwind. Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway off 19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was so high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible. I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted to come in as flat as possible. Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start looking? I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year. Kobra |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:43:10 +0000, kontiki wrote:
I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short field. Why? Unless I've some reason to do otherwise, I'll make every landing as slow and short (and precisely where I want to touch down) as possible. It's all good practice, and the slow part is being gentle on the airplane. I'll often only drop the full flaps on very short final, as I dislike dragging it in. But they're all the way down when I'm landing. Of course, now that I think on it, I've only 30 degrees of flaps. - Andrew |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:06:54 -0700, Dan_Thomas_nospam wrote:
Exactly. Most landing accidents happen when things aren't coming together properly and the pilot insists on landing anyway. If this runway had been icy he'd likely have written the airplane off. I landed last week at CQX, a runway that (I've learned {8^) has a hump in the middle. As I was coming down, I suddenly realized that I'd far less runway than I thought I should have had. I probably could have put it down in the remaining distance, but around I went. As soon as I started climbing, the rest of the runway - hiding behind the hump - came into view. I did feel a little silly, but I also welcomed the practice. - Andrew |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Jul 10, 10:00 am, "Al G" wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... "Kobra" wrote: snip From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken, the plane was not airworthy. Cite? Al G For Americans: Sec. 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness. (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur. For Canadians: Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General 605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and 605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is affected. (2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been issued specifically for that purpose. See, both systems leave it up to the pilot to determine airworthiness. But the Inspector's opinion may differ considerably from the pilot's, and legal trouble may arise. I know of plenty of pilots who would fly an airplane that I wouldn't, mostly because I'm older, have been doing this for enough years, and have had a couple of engine failures and some systems failures. A flap system failure, for instance, might leave you with retracted flaps; you take off, get to the destination, forget that the flaps don't work or decide to see if they're now working, and find that they extend. Good. Now the approach gets botched up or someone taxis out in front of you and so you go around, finding now that the flaps won't retract and you can't climb. Now what? Was aviation saftey affected? The accident will prove it. These electric flaps can do this; they've done it to our 172s. When they give the first hint of trouble the airplane is grounded. Dan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Jul 10, 9:37 am, Tina wrote:
It also seems you planned a nighttime arrivial with a known burned out landing light. Tina, My understanding is that landing night is not a requirement for non commerical flight ============== Sec. 91.205 & 91.507 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements. ............................. (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light. ============== During my training, my instructor had me landed with and without landing light at night. I actually found it was easier to land without landing light. Little mistakes have a way of compounding themselves. You may want to sit in a quiet place and think about your go - no go criteria for a while. The two best outcomes of all of this is you made a safe trip, and you have an opportunigy to make future trips safer. Although I generally agree with your statement. I find your comments to be somewhat condescending. I do not know Kobra personally but I have read quite a few of his postings. He is an experienced pilot who is always willing to share his experience be it good or bad for all of us, pilots, to learn. I don't think that he needs to be told 'to sit in a quiet place and think....' ! Hai Longworth |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.
It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land. When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6- cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before "practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props, and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all. This post, IMHO, above all else, is a real tribute to the utility of manual, Johnson-bar flap actuators. Hard to miss when THOSE don't work. :-) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. Exercising my PIC privilege, I guess I determined that the aircraft was airworthy. Roy Smith wrote: 10 kts too fast over the threshold is pretty significant. I don't fly the 177RG, but I found a checklist on the net that lists normal landing speeds at 60-70 kts and Vfe (top of the white arc, which is what you said you were doing on final) as 95. That's 25-35 kts too fast to land. I'm amazed you managed to get it stopped in 3000 feet. In fact, I can't believe you were really going that fast over the threshold, it's just not possible. I probably wasn't going that fast (95 KIAS). By the time I reached the threshold I was trimming the nose up and had the power at idle. I was probably at 90 MPH or 77 KIAS at that point. Normally I cross the fence at 70 MPH or 61 KIAS. Roy Smith wrote: Then you should have gone around. Plan every approach to be a go-around, and only make the decision to land when you get to the threshold and everything is good I was very ready to go-around, but the plane touched down well and I knew from the remaining distance that heavy braking would stop the plane in time. I landed on 31 and exited off on the second to last exit. It appears from the diagram that I had over a 1000 feet remaining. The runway is actually 3204 feet, so it wasn't as short as I first described. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0707/06425VGB.PDF Roy Smith wrote: The pondering should have happened before you took off. Roy, what you said is very true! I am embarrassed about two things. One that I didn't notice the flaps didn't come down at JGG. If I ever read someone else's account of this and they said they didn't know the flaps stayed up I would have thought they were brain dead and should never be behind a yoke again. But let me tell you...it can happen. If you're busy talking to traffic, looking for traffic, watching the two planes ready to take the runway, configuring the airplane for landing, doing your before landing checklist, flying the plane, etc. It can happen. Especially after 750 hours and setting the flaps in increments about 1200 times with never so much as a hiccup, one can become easily complacent. So, please no 'holier than thou' comments, such as Kontiki posted. kontiki wrote: As far as why you didn't notice that your flaps were not working... well... that is disturbing. I notice *every* little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in my airplane. You better knock wood. You speak boldly my friend, and if I might add, a little cocky. Cocky is disturbing and kills more pilots, I'm sure, than not noticing flap deployment. If *I* can teach *you* anything, it's that you CAN miss a little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in your airplane. Kobra wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 10, 10:00 am, "Al G" wrote: "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... "Kobra" wrote: snip From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken, the plane was not airworthy. Cite? Al G For Americans: Sec. 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness. (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur. For Canadians: Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General 605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and 605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is affected. (2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been issued specifically for that purpose. See, both systems leave it up to the pilot to determine airworthiness. But the Inspector's opinion may differ considerably from the pilot's, and legal trouble may arise. I know of plenty of pilots who would fly an airplane that I wouldn't, mostly because I'm older, have been doing this for enough years, and have had a couple of engine failures and some systems failures. A flap system failure, for instance, might leave you with retracted flaps; you take off, get to the destination, forget that the flaps don't work or decide to see if they're now working, and find that they extend. Good. Now the approach gets botched up or someone taxis out in front of you and so you go around, finding now that the flaps won't retract and you can't climb. Now what? Was aviation saftey affected? The accident will prove it. These electric flaps can do this; they've done it to our 172s. When they give the first hint of trouble the airplane is grounded. Dan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Jul 10, 3:38 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling. It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land. When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6- cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before "practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props, and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all. Jay, I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane. IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin someday and no amount of money is worth my life. Hai Longworth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cowl Flaps | N114RW | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 07 09:25 PM |
What are cowl flaps? | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 31 | October 27th 06 04:28 PM |
Fowler flaps? | TJ400 | Home Built | 20 | May 19th 06 02:15 AM |
FLAPS | skysailor | Soaring | 36 | September 7th 05 05:28 AM |
FLAPS-Caution | Steve Leonard | Soaring | 0 | August 27th 05 04:10 AM |