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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
I agree, it is not, so long as it is not a 'for hire' flight.
Never the less, one might want to review the decision to make a flight with an airplane that has to be landed in an unfamiliar confirguration at night without a landing light. I'm speaking as a non pilot here, so my concerns might be unfounded. Tina, My understanding is that landing night is not a requirement for non commerical flight ============== |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
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. Oh, we practice all the other stuff -- but short-short-short field landings are NOT one of them. Botching a power-off, let's-plant-it-on- the-numbers landing is just too potentially expensive, since Atlas' nose will slam down like Thor's hammer if you let him get too slow. Which isn't to say we shy away from short fields. We routinely fly into 2200 foot grass strips, so we're fairly proficient at it. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
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: snip... 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 Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said aircraft un-airworthy. This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for takeoff, optional for landing, and not used enroute. Now if it were a Lear... Al G CFIAMI 2069297 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy. This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for Al, I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps. Hai Longworth |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Al G wrote:
Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said aircraft un-airworthy. This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for takeoff, optional for landing, and not used enroute. Now if it were a Lear... Define "airworthy"; hint it does not mean "flyable". Ask Roy Smith about an 'energetic' FAA inspector. Hilton |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:16 -0700, Longworth
wrote: Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said aircraft un-airworthy. This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for Al, I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps. 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.... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Kobra wrote:
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. He called you a pimp? :-) :-) Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start looking? A failed switch. A burned out flap motor. Etc. I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year. No flap landings are really non-events. You got way too worked up over it. I'm also surprised that you kept ignoring all of the signs that the flaps were inop. This is a good lesson though and one that didn't cause you any harm and one that you will long remember. Whenever things feel different, find out why ... don't just keep plodding along. Matt |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
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. I believe my 182 had a similarly sized engine to your Piper and I always landed as close to full-stall as I could get. If you do it all the time, then you get to where it works pretty much all the time. And landing this way SAVES on tires and brakes and, done properly, has no affect on struts, firewalls, prop or engine. 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. It is hard to miss Cessna flaps either. I have to admit to wondering where Kobra mind was during that landing. Full flaps in any Cessna I've flown is simply hard to ignore, but I haven't flown a 177. Matt |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Peter Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:16 -0700, Longworth wrote: Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said aircraft un-airworthy. This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for Al, I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps. 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=?? As a 135 pilot I had a MEL(Minimum Equipt List) for each multi-engine aircraft I flew. I don't believe there is such a thing for a part 91 single engine pilot. In most cases, if something were inoperative, that imposed limits on your flight, but did not cancel the flight. I would not consider the failure of a light bulb to be an airworthiness item, unless night flight was planned. What if your comm radio was inoperative? Non-airworthy? Many aircraft have no radio, just like many aircraft have no flaps. Al G |
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 |