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

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

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

"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 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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:40:28 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:


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?

If you can somehow prove it's the switch and not the motor without
being an A&P and re-rigging the electrical wiring to show the motor
and indicator are both working, I guess. 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.