flaps

Roy Smith wrote in
:

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.


The POH for the 1977 C172N Skyhawk (D1082-13-RPC-1000-9/89) has
exactly one landing table, on page 5-21, marked "Short Field". This table
ONLY shows landing distance based on max weight of 2300 lbs. In Section 4
"Normal Procedures" on page 4-19, under "Normal Landing", the POH states
"Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any
flap setting desired."

An interpretation of 91.103 requiring that you know how much runway
you need to land or your not airworthy combined with the information
provided in this POH implies that you can never legally land a 1977 C172N
uless you are at max weight, doing a short field landing, full flaps, and
have the capability of inflight refueling (or some other means of ensuring
fuel burn doesn't reduce your weight below max) during the landing!

I guess no one has ever landed an airworthy 1977 C172N!


--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)