flaps again

Brian wrote in
:

snip
* *It is amazing how attitudes change over time and how certain
flying

procedures become part of our culture.

* *If I recall correctly, it was some time back in the 70's when some
FAA
bureaucrat made a PTS change decreeing that a normal landing was to
be wit
h full
flaps. *Before that, flap use was taught as something that was much
more
at the
pilot's option. *The change caused quite a furor at the time. *Some
in
structors
thought that full flap landings were much too advanced for mere
student pi
lots!

Vaughn


My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The
thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not
teaching these pilots to fly
single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as
a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a
737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap
landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as
they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient
method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this
may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40
degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier
biggest customers were these flight schools)

The problem comes when these pilots decide they want to teach General
Avation pilots to fly single engine airplanes. They will often tend to
teach they way they were taught. These instructors may start teaching
their students to fly 172's like it was a 737 and we see things
transfered from the 737 to the c-172 that really don't apply to the
C-172. For the pilot training to fly small single engine airplanes
they really should learn to use the flap as needed instead as just a
checklist item.


Absolutely true and it is getting to be a bigger problem all the time.
Even guys who are moving on to large aircraft are being cheated, IMO


Bertie

On Jan 1, 10:05*pm, wrote:

Do large jets ever land without flaps for any reason? I have never
seen big jets landing without flaps.. so I have often wondered if it
is something not recommended.

Not only is this not recommended, it is not allowed for a number of
reasons. First, the clean speed on most airliners is between 220 and
250 KTS, you would never fit into the pattern at these speeds and if
you were to touch down this fast you would use more runway than many
airports have, not to mention melting the fuse plugs trying to get the
thing stopped. Another biggie is that you only get 9 to 11 degrees of
pitch during flare before you get a tailstike. This is extreemly easy
to exeed without flaps. Even with 15 degrees of flap you can bottom
out the thrust reversers on several models of the Boeings.Reduced flap
settings also have a dramatic effect on the Quick Turn Around limits.
The brake tempurature has to be below a certain value before we can
begin a takeoff roll (To assure enough brake energy in the event of an
RTO). Some jets have a brake temp gauge, Boeing uses a graph that
takes into account HW/TW, RWY slope, landing wieght,temp and the flap
setting. The lower the flap setting, the longer you have to wait for
the brakes to cool and this can (And does in the summertime)
ocasoinaly result in a late push.
FB

On Dec 30 2007, 9:06*pm, "Kobra" wrote:
First, as a reminder, some may recall that I had unwittingly landed one day
in Williamsburg, VA without the flaps. *I didn't notice they had not
deployed until my next pre-flight when I found them INOP. *They I remembered
out fast I came over the fence and controlling the airspeed was more
difficult then ever before. *I took a lot of heat from other pilots that
basicly said, "How in the world could any pilot worth a darn EVER not
realize that their flaps didn't come out! *THAT would NEVER happen to ME!!"

This is going to be long and rambling, so bear with me.

Those are the same pilots who believe they can never land gear up.
Actually, there are pilots who will certainly never land gear up.
They are the ones who only fly fixed gear airplanes. And then there
are the ones who believe they can't groundloop. The only ones who are
right about this are the ones who don't fly taildraggers. Accidents
can happen to all of us, because none of us are perfect.

The situation is actually very similar when it comes to inadvertent
flaps-up and gear-up landings. Gear and flaps both have aerodynamic
effects when extended/retracted. A very refined airplane (think later-
model Bonanza) will have minimal (if any) trim change with extension/
retraction (this is nice because it reduces pilot workload on
approach), but with most planes you will notice a trim change. And no
matter what, there will be changes in the aural/visual/tactile cues
(the plane will sound different, something will look different, and it
will feel different) as well as a change in power required to maintain
a given speed and glideslope. And yet, year in and year out, pilots
manage to land gear up. I'm sure they land flaps up even more often,
but mostly that doesn't cause any damage so nobody talks about it.

Which brings us to the one (and only) difference between landing flaps
up and gear up. Gear up is expensive, every time. Flaps up is
actually more likely to be fatal (as in, you get too slow in a turn)
but most of the time it costs nothing at all except some extra runway,
which is free. That's it. That's why we hammer on gear up
procedurally and mostly ignore flaps up. Thing is, nobody is perfect
procedurally. I note by your signature that you are flying a
retract. Realize that since your cues for handling are not so well
developed, you are at greater risk than someone whose feel for the
plane is better for gearing it up. However, it's probably nothing
more than being low time, so don't worry about it, it will come.

To understand why you landed flaps up without realizing it, look into
inadvertent gear up landings.

There are two extremes in the pilot population. On one extreme are
those who are 'aware' of everything that goes on around them. On the
other extreme are those who are 'procedural' - they will go through
the motions as they did in training and not notice that things are not
really working out. Of course those are extremes; most pilots fall
somewhere in the middle.

As an instructor, it's pretty easy to tell what sort of pilot you are
dealing with. Whenever I check someone out in a retract with
electrically powered gear, I will always pull the gear circuit breaker
when he's not looking. Sometimes hilarity ensues - as when I have to
call a go-around or missed approach. Sometimes the student catches me
at it.

In an ideal world, the pilot who is 'aware' will realize the gear
isn't coming down because the plane won't slow down/get down, or he
has to pull the power too far back, or it's too 'pitchy' or whatnot.
I've seen that happen quite a bit. That's how the students have
caught me. They would realize something was wrong, then realize what
it probably was, and THEN check the gear indicator. I've also had it
happen to me a couple of times (realize I have 1300+ hours in
retracts). For whatever reason (I got distracted by traffic, for
example), in my normal flying I've forgotten to put the gear down
where I normally do. I always figured it out on final because the
plane did not behave the way it was supposed to - I was pulling the
power too far back and not slowing down properly. THEN I checked the
lever and indicator.

Now ideally a 'procedural' pilot will also catch this. A GUMPS check,
a 'three green on final' check, something. I suppose it must happen
sometimes, but I've never seen it. Never have I seen a student catch
the problem procedurally. I have seen a student say three green when
the lights were most emphatically not green. I've seen a student say
"three green and one in the mirror" when there was nothing but closed
gear doors in the mirror and no green lights at all. I find it very
unfortunate that the FAA forbids doing this (pulling breakers) on
checkrides, thus assuring that most CFI's won't do this with their
students.

One of the things that insurance companies look for when you step into
a retract is total time. A guy with 1000 total hours, all of them in
fixed gear airplanes, will have relatively little problem getting
insured in something like a Bonanza. A guy with 100 total hours may
find himself uninsurable at any price - and having 10 of those hours
in an Arrow won't likely make any difference. That's because
insurance companies know the score - hours don't guarantee that a
pilot will become aware of his aircraft and environment, but lack of
hours nearly guarantees that he won't.

Then it hit me...how in the world could he have flaps 30 with 16 or 17
inches of MP at our decent rate and be out of the white arc. *That is not
possible. *I looked over my right shoulder and saw the reason...the flaps
were fully retracted.

See, this is what I am talking about. First, you figured out that
something was wrong (awareness). THEN you checked procedurally.
That's how I've always seen it happen - never the other way around.
So why did you figure it out this time but not when it happened to
you? One, you had it happen to you before so you were more primed for
it. Some say experience is what lets you recognize the mistake the
second time you make it. Two, you were not flying the plane so you
had more mental 'cycles' left over for thinking. One of the things
that happens as you get more hours is that more things become
automatic, and you find easier, less workload-intesive ways to do
things - which frees up cycles. That's where awareness comes from -
having spare cycles to think about stuff.

So when do you have spare cycles? Well, you usually have some in
cruise. Once you get used to noticing stuff in cruise (even a 50 hour
pilot has enough cycles left over in cruise to notice stuff) you get
in the habit of doing it all the time.

One of the reasons I am so down on these programs that take you from
zero time to CFI/CFII/MEI in 300 hours is because they don't give you
near enough opportunity to just be with the airplane - to just fly
somewhere. Instead, you are always cramming new procedures, new
checklists, new this, new that - and all of it procedurally (because
it's the only way to do it in so few hours). You still make mistakes
and forget stuff, of course - but you don't really learn from them.
It's all seen as failure to follow the correct procedure - and of
course it is, but you have to realize that everyone is going to do
that sometimes, and the more procedures and checklists you run, the
more likely you are to miss some item. The solution is not more
checklists and procedures - what is needed is to develop what we used
to call in skydiving instruction 'air awareness' - and what might best
be called situational awareness. But that's going to take time, and
it requires unstructured time. Ever wonder why you could get every
fixed wing certificate and rating by 250 hours (less if Part 141) but
the ATP requires 1500 and IFR PIC under Part 135 requires 1200? Well,
that's the logic, and it's somewhat sound.

Now of course awareness is not perfect either (which is why I don't
advocate throwing away checklists) and with enough distraction anyone
can miss anything. When I was doing recurrent training and flying a
single engine partial panel ILS with some other failures and twists
thrown in, I forgot to put the gear down (I caught it when I pulled
the power back to land and the gear horn went off - and the instructor
called the go around at that point). One time on a partial panel
single engine circling NDB, I forgot to put down the flaps (the
instructor just let me do it - there was enough runway). With enough
other stuff being abnormal, one more abnormal may not show up. This
is where a checklist may really save you (or not - if it gets that
busy, you may not have the time for it).

I kind-of feel vindicated that another pilot had the same mild distractions
in the pattern, was setting his flaps as always and never noticed at each of
three changes that no flaps what-so-ever were being provided.

Some level of distraction will be enough for anyone some of the time.
I've managed to set up a 15000+ hour ATP that way while doing his
recurrent training. On the other hand, mild distractions in the
pattern ought not to be enough that you don't notice that the flaps
have failed to work. It indicates that you need to get more in tune
with your airplane. So go fly some more. Not train, fly. Go
somewhere. Enjoy the sight, sound, and feel of flying. Become one
with the airplane. Yeah, I know, it sounds more mystical that
practical, but trust me. This will work itself out.

Michael

In rec.aviation.student Michael wrote:
So go fly some more. Not train, fly. Go
somewhere. Enjoy the sight, sound, and feel of flying. Become one
with the airplane. Yeah, I know, it sounds more mystical that
practical, but trust me. This will work itself out.

Thank you for an excellent post. Since getting my PPL this past spring
I've occasionally felt like some of my subsequent flying time was wasted
compared to before. In training I was always learning something new. And
truly, even after I passed the checkride, I think I've done a good job of
expanding my limits without becoming reckless, and I've definitely learned
a lot since then. But sometimes when I was up there just having a little
fun I'd think somewhere in the back of my head that maybe I could be doing
more, pushing more, learning more.

You've made me realize that this time is still valuable and still makes me
a better pilot even if I'm not consciously pushing my limits. I never
hesitated about going up and just having some fun but it's good to realize
that it's still valuable experience. Thanks!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Roy Smith wrote:
Hilton wrote:

I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we had
a
total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him hold a
flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a glassy water
landing - worked perfectly!

I'm confused -- if he was your student, why did you do the landing? Seems
like a perfect opportunity for a "learning experience".

Good suggestion. However... We were at a towered airport with other planes
in the pattern, tower unaware of what was happening (but could probably
guess), etc. It was pretty funny on the downwind when I was wing-wagging to
indicate lost comm. Then suddenly I realized that it was night and we had
no lights! I treated it as an emergency, and in my judgement, it was
appropriate that we acted as a team and that we land safely. Think of the
student's learning experience as being in CRM.

Hilton

On Jan 2, 4:35 pm, Michael wrote:

Which brings us to the one (and only) difference between landing flaps
up and gear up. Gear up is expensive, every time. Flaps up is
actually more likely to be fatal (as in, you get too slow in a turn)
but most of the time it costs nothing at all except some extra runway,
which is free. That's it.

Unless you are landing on a minimal runway, as we often do
out here in the Canadian west. An inadvertent flaps-up landing can get
really messy at the far end, depending on the obstacles that might be
there. Tall grass, not so bad. Fence, gonna scratch the airplane some.
Trees, not good. Big trees, bad. Mud, gonna get the top of the
airplane really dirty and dented. Big rocks, very bad. Lots of scrap
metal and maybe scrap people. Water, well...I hope you survive long
enough to get out of the airplane.
So pay attention to what the airplane is telling you.

Dan

On Jan 2, 9:15 pm, wrote:
On Jan 2, 4:35 pm, Michael wrote:

Which brings us to the one (and only) difference between landing flaps
up and gear up. Gear up is expensive, every time. Flaps up is
actually more likely to be fatal (as in, you get too slow in a turn)
but most of the time it costs nothing at all except some extra runway,
which is free. That's it.

Unless you are landing on a minimal runway, as we often do
out here in the Canadian west. An inadvertent flaps-up landing can get
really messy at the far end, depending on the obstacles that might be
there.

Not really, you just need to learn how to land better,
making use of flare and ground effect.
Landing with zero flaps, needs a tricky extended flare
and once the tires are on the runway, keep the nose up,
with pitch control to the elevator, that way the entire
main wing operates as an air brake.
Be very gentle on wheel braking control because that
will lower the nose, and you want the nose as high
as possible, while rolling.

Once the nose falls, it's hard to get it up because of
the relation of the CM to the wheel contact point on
the ground. At a high AOA, the CM is pretty close
to the vertical location of the wheel contact point,
and the elevator is effective.

The key is to understand the wheel contact point in
relation to the CM. Most A/C with tricycle gear are
designed to keep the weight on the mains and keep
the forward lightly loaded.
Ken

On 2008-01-01 21:48:18 -0800, Brian said:

snip
* *It is amazing how attitudes change over time and how certain flying

procedures become part of our culture.

* *If I recall correctly, it was some time back in the 70's when some
FAA
bureaucrat made a PTS change decreeing that a normal landing was to be wit
h full
flaps. *Before that, flap use was taught as something that was much more
at the
pilot's option. *The change caused quite a furor at the time. *Some in
structors
thought that full flap landings were much too advanced for mere student pi
lots!

Vaughn


My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The
thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not
teaching these pilots to fly
single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as
a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a
737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap
landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as
they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient
method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this
may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40
degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier
biggest customers were these flight schools)

I have not observed this. The flight academies teach you to follow the
checklist that comes in the POH, not fly a 172 as if it was a 737. If
they taught you to fly the 172 like a 737, they would teach crosswind
landings differently. So I question your whole premise and the
conclusions that follow from it.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2008-01-01 14:08:09 -0800, Dudley Henriques said:

Blueskies wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0600, Michael Ash
wrote:
Isn't there somewhat vague a section on emergency procedures which would
allow the examiner to say, "your flaps have failed, now go land"?
My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.



Exactly!

Then every landing made in a Piper Cub, Colt, or a Decathlon is an
emergency? :-))

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am just unlucky, but I have had several flap
failures in a Cessna 172. It never seemed like an emergency to me -- at
most, an annoyance.

One thing I do when the flaps fail is check to see if my radios are
still working, just to make sure I don't have a power failure.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2008-01-01 18:26:04 -0800, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com said:

Barry wrote:
My examiner called the no flap landing an emergency procedure.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.

DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger
and of requiring immediate assistance.

URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely
but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.

So I would say that the inability to extend flaps would be considered an
emergency only if it puts you in serious or imminent danger, or causes you to
be concerned about safety.


I would call it no more than an annoyance unless I have to stuff the airplane
into a really short strip. Emergency? That examiner has to be kidding.

He calls it an emergency because that is where a flap failure is in the
PTS. It is in the "Emergency Procedures" section. I doubt very much
that the examiner thinks it is really an emergency.

OTOH, people do manage to turn non-emergencies into emergencies. Every
now and then you hear of someone who smashes up a perfectly flyable
airplane simply because they managed to spear a June bug with the pitot
tube, or a door popped open in flight, or something minor like that.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor