"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. Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more,
nothing less.

Since the '60s, '70s, and '80s models showed no flap landing data, and flaps
were considered optional this question really boils down to what the POH
says for the particular aircraft being flown. Students learning at busy
commercial airports almost never used flaps as a normal procedure.

Of course we taught recovery from fully developed spins to instructors back
then also. Isn't it interesting that some modern aircraft could be
considered out-of-service for inop flaps, but only a few years ago they were
very optional. I imagine that today a DER or FSDO inspector would have a
stroke if we used all 60 degrees we had on the old O-1s or rolled on a wheel
landing with them at zero.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas