flaps

Landing with less than full flaps is CERTAINLY not "Beating up the
airplane." Where do you come up with such rubbish.

My Cessna's POH specifically states:

FLAP LIMITATIONS:

Approved Landing Range. 0--40
Not being able to select the proper flap for landing conditions is a serious
training flaw. Full flap all the time is ridiculous.

Karl


"Blueskies" wrote in message
et...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Get a real A&P to check out the flap situation. If its
not the breaker it could be the flap motor (one of the
reasons I do like manual flaps).

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.

I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short
field.

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.

Maybe not, you don't have to USE them..........but they must be operable.

Karl

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"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

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
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.

Well, you certainly haven't seen all the Cessnas POHs. Mine has performance
numbers for "SHORT FIELD" only.

Normal landings can be conducted with ANY amount of flaps, per the FLAP
LIMITATIONS section.

Karl

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
I guess no one has ever landed an airworthy 1977 C172N!

Landing an unairworthy airplane is not the question.

It's knowingly taking off with an unairworthy airplane that is not only
illegal but stupid.

Karl

Karl,

Not being able to select the proper flap for landing conditions is a serious
training flaw. Full flap all the time is ridiculous.


That the POH doesn't say ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
be considered unairworthy.

What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?

My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
paperwork problem.

Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.

The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?

- Andrew

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"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




"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
Maybe not, you don't have to USE them..........but they must be operable.

Karl



I don't see where that is true.

Hilton helped us with the definition:

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.


Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the normal
operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with flaps
up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that case
your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate, and
therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is not
part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly home?

How about the landing light or panel lights during daylight operations? Not
needed, not part of the day VFR certification. Same thing right?

Are you telling me that if you were in Joseph, Oregon, (No mechanics, No
Feds, No help), and
you had a panel light dimmer failure, that you wouldn't fly home and get it
fixed?

This is almost getting to the point where "everything" must work, (zero
tolerance). If I have two navigation lights on each wing, and one of them
burns out, can I fly at night? It sounds awfully unsafe to say I'm going to
go out and fly at night with a known inoperative nav light.
In fact, if this were true, you would cut your dispatch rate by adding the
extra nav light, as that provides one more item to go bad, thereby doubling
the effective "Nav Light Cancellation Rate".

Al G

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:48:58 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:

Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the normal
operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with flaps
up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that case
your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate, and
therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

And for a H model where there is aparantly no limitation to the
contrary it likely doesn't. The point here is that at least in the R,
S, and T NAV III 172/182 models there *IS* a specific limitation that
for all intents and purposes requires the flap system be operable. The
point here is that people should check their own aircraft's POH to
make sure they are in compliance with the limitations when they have
inoperative equipment, regardless of what equipment is inop.

If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is not
part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly home?

If it's not required explicitly in part 91, the next question that
needs an answer is wheter the item is listed as R or S in the KOEL or
eqipment list? If it's listed as required equipment in the KOEL or
equipment list then I postulate that yes, in fact, you either need to
fix it, or you do need a special cert to fly home if that item is
inopearive. It can and has been demonstrated to be different from
range of aircraft to range of aircraft, even in the same generic model
(I.E. Nav II or Nav III equipped 182T), and whatever POH is in that
specific airframe is what's required to be adhered to.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:48:58 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:

Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the
normal
operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with
flaps
up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that
case
your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate,
and
therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

And for a H model where there is aparantly no limitation to the
contrary it likely doesn't. The point here is that at least in the R,
S, and T NAV III 172/182 models there *IS* a specific limitation that
for all intents and purposes requires the flap system be operable. The
point here is that people should check their own aircraft's POH to
make sure they are in compliance with the limitations when they have
inoperative equipment, regardless of what equipment is inop.


Agreed.


If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is
not
part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly
home?

If it's not required explicitly in part 91, the next question that
needs an answer is wheter the item is listed as R or S in the KOEL or
eqipment list? If it's listed as required equipment in the KOEL or
equipment list then I postulate that yes, in fact, you either need to
fix it, or you do need a special cert to fly home if that item is
inopearive. It can and has been demonstrated to be different from
range of aircraft to range of aircraft, even in the same generic model
(I.E. Nav II or Nav III equipped 182T), and whatever POH is in that
specific airframe is what's required to be adhered to.

Agreed.

So the OP was flying a C-177RG, I guess it depends on the year, and what is
in the KOEL if applicable.

Al G

Matt Whiting wrote:

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.

I'd look into having the prop indexed (ie. moved one blade on the hub) to
fix the vibration issue...

With the 3 blade, climb should be better, cruise will suffer, takeoff noise
should be reduced too...

My neighbors Baron lost nearly 8 knots on cruise, he's alot quieter when
taking off over the house, and climbs very well out of short strips
though...