flaps

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:

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General

605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and
605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has
equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been
removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is
affected.

(2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a
take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or
from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated
in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been
issued specifically for that purpose.

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

airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.

Exercising my PIC privilege, I guess I determined that the aircraft was
airworthy.

Roy Smith wrote:
10 kts too fast over the threshold is pretty significant. I don't fly the
177RG, but I found a checklist on the net that lists normal landing speeds
at 60-70 kts and Vfe (top of the white arc, which is what you said you
were
doing on final) as 95. That's 25-35 kts too fast to land. I'm amazed you
managed to get it stopped in 3000 feet. In fact, I can't believe you were
really going that fast over the threshold, it's just not possible.

I probably wasn't going that fast (95 KIAS). By the time I reached the
threshold I was trimming the nose up and had the power at idle. I was
probably at 90 MPH or 77 KIAS at that point. Normally I cross the fence at
70 MPH or 61 KIAS.

Roy Smith wrote:
Then you should have gone around. Plan every approach to be a go-around,
and only make the decision to land when you get to the threshold and
everything is good

I was very ready to go-around, but the plane touched down well and I knew
from the remaining distance that heavy braking would stop the plane in time.
I landed on 31 and exited off on the second to last exit. It appears from
the diagram that I had over a 1000 feet remaining. The runway is actually
3204 feet, so it wasn't as short as I first described.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0707/06425VGB.PDF

Roy Smith wrote:
The pondering should have happened before you took off.


Roy, what you said is very true! I am embarrassed about two things. One
that I didn't notice the flaps didn't come down at JGG. If I ever read
someone else's account of this and they said they didn't know the flaps
stayed up I would have thought they were brain dead and should never be
behind a yoke again. But let me tell you...it can happen. If you're busy
talking to traffic, looking for traffic, watching the two planes ready to
take the runway, configuring the airplane for landing, doing your before
landing checklist, flying the plane, etc. It can happen. Especially after
750 hours and setting the flaps in increments about 1200 times with never so
much as a hiccup, one can become easily complacent. So, please no 'holier
than thou' comments, such as Kontiki posted.
kontiki wrote:
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.
You better knock wood. You speak boldly my friend, and if I might add, a
little cocky. Cocky is disturbing and kills more pilots, I'm sure, than not
noticing flap deployment. If *I* can teach *you* anything, it's that you
CAN miss a little sound, motion, vibration or whatever in your airplane.

Kobra

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:

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General

605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and
605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has
equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been
removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is
affected.

(2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a
take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or
from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated
in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been
issued specifically for that purpose.

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

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

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

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....

"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

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

"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

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.

"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