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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"BT" wrote You knowingly had problems in the traffic pattern and landing because you did not know the flaps were not working, and yet you took off on a night cross country in marginal weather to a relatively short runway based on your mechanic calling you a "wimp". Whoa, there. Facts are getting twisted. The mechanic called him a wimp after the fact (of the unrecognized no flaps landing) in reference to bringing the plane back home. -- Jim in NC |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Kobra,
He also said I was a complete wimp (he used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway. He's damn right! Seriously and without trying to offend or anything, I think your post reveals a ton of problems. First, the flaps. For a no-flaps landing you add maybe 5 knots to your approach speed. That's less than a 10 percent increase in speed, which results in less than a 20 percent increase in distance. From a quick google search, a standard rollout for the 177RG is 730 feet, total distance over the 50 feet obstacle is 1350 feet. With an additional 5 knots, if you come anywhere close to a 3000 feet roll and require heavy breaking, as you describe, you REALLY need to work on those landings (the normal ones, not even the short-field variant). You should be able to stop in well under 1000 feet with no flaps every time you try. Even giving any thought to a 3500 feet runway being a problem indicates a serious problem with pilot training, IMHO. As others have posted, this is just one of the many problems your post indicates: - You seem to have been WAY too fast on final. Yet you don't seem to have gone through enough trouble-shooting to find the (rather obvious) cause. You didn't go around with so many things not "going right", either. - You seem to have little to no familiarity with your plane in slow flight, especially without flaps. - You seem to have more or less included in your planning the possibility of flying at night, yet you let the landing light go unrepaired for a long time. - You pondered the potential difficulties of your landing AFTER taking off, IOW in the air. IMHO, a serious re-evaluation of your decision-making process in connection with piloting would be a very good idea. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Longworth wrote:
I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane. IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin someday and no amount of money is worth my life. Hai Longworth Couldn't have said it better myself. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Roger,
I subcribed to NASA Callback and had filed a NASA report once (eventhough everything I did in that flight was legal). I think the very fact that a pilot filed a report or posted their experience indicates that he/she had reflected on the event, learned a lesson from it and wanted to share the experience with others to learn. I don't think that any pilot could honesty say that he/she had never made a bad decision or an error. Kobra was surprised that he did not notice that the flaps were inoperative. He called his mechanic. He pondered about the situation. He advised others to go practice no-flap landings. He certainly DID think enough about the incidence to post it here. He might have even thought about it while sitting in a quiet corner ;-) Everytime that I read a post about some bad events from a fellow pilot, I always cringe in seeing reprimanding or scolding remarks from the Monday morning quarrterback or armchair pilots. It's a good thing the Callback site does not have a readers' feedback option! I have flown for less than 7 years and have just a bit shy of 700hrs. I have learned a lot about flying, about safety, about my own capability and limitation skillwise and judgementwise from other pilots, from posts such as this one by Kobra. I am a very safety minded flyer. I do my best not to fly when being stressed, tired. I am very lucky to have a constant copilot to share the workload. I fully sympathize with the single pilot especially single pilot IFR. Flying can be very demanding. I can see myself making the same errors as confessed by other pilots under similar circumstances. I am grateful to learn from their mistakes. I do not want to see people gets discouraged or afraid of posting their flying experience for fear of criticism or condemnation. Hai Longworth |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:21:15 +0000, Jim Carter wrote:
It is almost 2nd nature to reach for the trim wheel right after selecting flaps in a Cessna so why didn't the poster notice that he didn't need to retrim? Perhaps that - the "second nature" part - is exactly why it didn't register. I just did a flight review in our R182. Discussing gear use, the CFI mentioned that during some training he did of someone once upon a time there was some extended flight during which the gear horn was sounding (a simulated engine failure). When it finally came time to land, the pilot never put down the gear; he'd completely tuned out the sound. Our brains are weird. The CFI called a go around on that landing. The student went to pull the gear up for the go around and only then realized that it was still up. Despite the horn still doing it's bleat bleat. - Andrew |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Peter Clark wrote: The intent of the limitation - flaps have to be working - is obvious. They don't say you have to actually use them, but they do have to be in working order. There is some logic in this. All the Cessna AFMs I've seen (i.e. for various flavors of their piston singles) have nice detailed performance charts showing how much runway you need to land with various combinations of weight, temperature, elevation, wind, and phase of moon, but the numbers always are for full flaps. There is NO data on how much runway you need without flaps, therefor there is no way you can comply with 91.103 which requires that you familiarize yourself with the takeoff and landing distances. Now, you know, and I know, and every body hanging out in the airport coffee shop knows that you can land a 172 with no flaps on a 2000 foot paved runway without any problems (assuming you know what you're doing). But, that doesn't count when it comes to determining if the airplane is airworthy. Well said Roy. I can see Cessna adding it to the "Operating Limits", after all the charts for that aircraft using specify their use, hence the KOEL. The 1967 172H manual I'm looking at has a single page limitations section, with no mention of flaps. Just the Day/Night/VFR, with instruments, IFR, normal category. The landing chart is a single line assuming short field over an obstacle, with 40 degrees of flap. Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less. Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you? Al G |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Longworth" wrote in message oups.com... Roger, I subcribed to NASA Callback and had filed a NASA report once (eventhough everything I did in that flight was legal). I think the very fact that a pilot filed a report or posted their experience indicates that he/she had reflected on the event, learned a lesson from it and wanted to share the experience with others to learn. I don't think that any pilot could honesty say that he/she had never made a bad decision or an error. Amen. Al G |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On 07/11/07 07:01, Longworth wrote:
[ snip ] I have flown for less than 7 years and have just a bit shy of 700hrs. I have learned a lot about flying, about safety, about my own capability and limitation skillwise and judgementwise from other pilots, from posts such as this one by Kobra. I am a very safety minded flyer. I do my best not to fly when being stressed, tired. I am very lucky to have a constant copilot to share the workload. I fully sympathize with the single pilot especially single pilot IFR. Flying can be very demanding. I can see myself making the same errors as confessed by other pilots under similar circumstances. I am grateful to learn from their mistakes. I do not want to see people gets discouraged or afraid of posting their flying experience for fear of criticism or condemnation. Hai Longworth I agree 100%, Hai. I hope Kobra and others continue to post these type of accounts. I learn a lot by reading and participating. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Al G wrote:
Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less. Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you? I do. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must be met for an aircraft to be considered "airworthy." 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c) and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b), and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate: a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft. b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, and tire wear. NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be considered unairworthy. Hilton |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Hilton" wrote in message t... Al G wrote: Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less. Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you? I do. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must be met for an aircraft to be considered "airworthy." 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c) and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b), and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate: a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft. b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, and tire wear. NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be considered unairworthy. Hilton Thank you sir. Al G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
flaps | Kobra[_4_] | Piloting | 84 | July 16th 07 06:16 PM |
Flaps on take-off and landing | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 397 | September 22nd 06 09:02 AM |
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 |