flaps

On Jul 10, 6:51 am, 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.

Exactly. Most landing accidents happen when things aren't
coming together properly and the pilot insists on landing anyway. If
this runway had been icy he'd likely have written the airplane off.

Piper and Cessna took interesting divergent paths when they designed their
airplanes. Piper decided they were going to use electric trim and manual
flaps. Cessna decided on electric flaps and manual trim. In both cases,
each manufacturer added one totally unnecessary electric system and thus
saddled their owners with forever pouring money into fixing them. Maybe
the high-wing design made it difficult to engineer a manual flap control
linkage?

Cessna originally built their singles with manual flaps.
The 172 didn't get electric flaps until around 1967. The 180/185 never
had them. Those airplanes could be landed really short, because the
pilot could approach at minimum airspeed and dump the flaps instantly
on touchdown and get lots of weight on the mains for braking. Electric
flaps are too slow to retract.

In any case, if it's not the breaker, if could be the actuator
switch, the motor, one of the micro-switches that limit movement, or any of
the wiring in between. Just bring it to your mechanic with your checkbook
and let him put another kid through college :-)

If It's what I think and the airplane has the preselector-type
flap control, one of the microswitches on the lever follower is dead
or disconnected. They do that.

Dan

"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

IMHO, full flaps are called for on a normal landing...it is only when gusts
or crosswinds raise their ugly heads that lesse deflections should be used.
The goal is minimum speed at touchdown, and you are depriving yourself of a
huge energy sink.

Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

Bob Gardner

"Kobra" wrote in message
. ..
Aviators,

My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed
until Sunday.

On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming
out of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.

The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
picked up a tailwind.

I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp.

On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened.
Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on
landing and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely
or unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I
notice that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change
pitch or that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I
just didn't catch the fact that no flaps came out.

Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he
used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane
without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.

I took off and started to ponder the situation:

No flaps
No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
way could you see more than 3 miles)
No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on
landing)
and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with
my primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
during the day with a headwind.

Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway
off 19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was
so high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible.

I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted
to come in as flat as possible.

Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
looking?

I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.

Kobra

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:43:10 +0000, kontiki wrote:

I hardly ever land with full flaps unless its a short field.

Why? Unless I've some reason to do otherwise, I'll make every landing as
slow and short (and precisely where I want to touch down) as possible.
It's all good practice, and the slow part is being gentle on the airplane.

I'll often only drop the full flaps on very short final, as I dislike
dragging it in. But they're all the way down when I'm landing.

Of course, now that I think on it, I've only 30 degrees of flaps.

- Andrew

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:06:54 -0700, Dan_Thomas_nospam wrote:

Exactly. Most landing accidents happen when things aren't
coming together properly and the pilot insists on landing anyway. If this
runway had been icy he'd likely have written the airplane off.

I landed last week at CQX, a runway that (I've learned {8^) has a hump in
the middle. As I was coming down, I suddenly realized that I'd far less
runway than I thought I should have had. I probably could have put it
down in the remaining distance, but around I went.

As soon as I started climbing, the rest of the runway - hiding behind the
hump - came into view. I did feel a little silly, but I also welcomed the
practice.

- Andrew

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

On Jul 10, 9:37 am, Tina wrote:
It also seems you planned a nighttime arrivial with a known burned out
landing light.

Tina,
My understanding is that landing night is not a requirement for non
commerical flight

==============
Sec. 91.205 & 91.507
Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
.............................
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
==============
During my training, my instructor had me landed with and without
landing light at night. I actually found it was easier to land
without landing light.

Little mistakes have a way of compounding themselves. You may want to
sit in a quiet place and think about your go - no go criteria for a
while. The two best outcomes of all of this is you made a safe trip,
and you have an opportunigy to make future trips safer.

Although I generally agree with your statement. I find your
comments to be somewhat condescending. I do not know Kobra
personally but I have read quite a few of his postings. He is an
experienced pilot who is always willing to share his experience be it
good or bad for all of us, pilots, to learn. I don't think that he
needs to be told 'to sit in a quiet place and think....' !


Hai Longworth

Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.

When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
"practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.

This post, IMHO, above all else, is a real tribute to the utility of
manual, Johnson-bar flap actuators. Hard to miss when THOSE don't
work.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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

On Jul 10, 3:38 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.

When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
"practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.


Jay,
I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every
so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow
flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have
the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no
ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane.
IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin
someday and no amount of money is worth my life.

Hai Longworth