flaps

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
be considered unairworthy.

What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?

My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
paperwork problem.

Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.

The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?

- Andrew

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
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.

Well, you certainly haven't seen all the Cessnas POHs. Mine has performance
numbers for "SHORT FIELD" only.

Normal landings can be conducted with ANY amount of flaps, per the FLAP
LIMITATIONS section.

Karl