flaps

Blueskies wrote:


Why are you beating up the plane?

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

It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.



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

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

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

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

Hilton

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


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

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

KOEL=??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilton


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

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

Al G

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:


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

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

KOEL=??

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al G

"kontiki" wrote in message news
Blueskies wrote:


Why are you beating up the plane?

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

It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

kontiki wrote:
Blueskies wrote:


Why are you beating up the plane?

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

It is good to practice emergency landings every so often.


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

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

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

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

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

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

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

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:

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

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


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

Matt