Bought into a 182P

[James331]

Nate,

Thanks for you reply. I guess I neglected to include the book's name

As to the landing flap setting, there are several reasons I use 20 degrees of flaps.

1. If I have to do a go-around, I am already configured. Full power and fly the airplane.
2. In my airplane I have a LOT more up trim at 40 degrees. It is manageable but I need add the task of re-trimming to the above scenario.
3. I rarely use runways that need 40 degrees of flaps.
4. I have had several stuck flap situations in the past. If they stick at 40 I have no options. If the stick at 20, I can relocate to a mx shop of my choice.

Some say my brake and tire wear might be worse, or as you say blowing a tire at 50 is more unsafe than at 30 but I am no expert. All I know is for me, after experiencing both configurations in my legacy, non-STOL airplane, the reasons to use 20 flaps out weigh the reasons to use 40 flaps.

Kevin

old CFI once said if youre going to crash, crash slow

I am nearly always full flaps, and that's even in a STOL plane

Also don't have the butt for full fuel, unless I'm working and paid well, couple hours and I like to walk around, even as a young guy.

 

[N53KL]

I'd say most of those are conveniences to be weighed against the added risk of severe injury. I don't think flap 20 is "wrong" per se, but one must think carefully about the decision.

If you can fly and land it slow, you can fly and land it fast, but not as much vice-versa.

What the faster landing speed allows is less time at speeds where you have to use full control inputs in gusts, because it's "over with" sooner, but it gives a false sense of greater control skill.

It's kinda like flying an ILS slow versus fast. Less time for that needle to wander and make you chase it, but if you do it slower it takes more skill and correct corrections.

If you do it the "hard way" the dividends are higher in the long term.

You mentioned the STOL on my airplane so I'll point out something for folks who think STOL fixes things...

The STOL actually makes this worse/harder, not easier. It'll land at <40 indicated due to calibration error at the higher angle of attack.

Controls get really weak and sloppy at that speed, and you need bigger and faster control inputs to arrest any undesired lateral or yawing motion and gobs of power if the sink rate starts downward.

Flown right, which is a freaking workout in gusts, it does mean I can get it down and stopped completely in about 300' if I'm in top practice. Maybe I'll need that ability someday, maybe I won't, but it's not easier. It's work.

I'd at least make every say, fourth or fifth landing, a simulated short field, just to keep the memory sharp on just how sloppy the controls feel, if I were in the habit of the airliner style landings with long roll outs.

If nothing else it will keep you from being surprised at how far a 182 will float past the intended landing point with full flap if the approach is flown at typical approach speeds, for the day you need to put it on a spot.

I've flown the older 182s without STOL and the G1000 chubby ones as well as the heavy nosed 182RG -- they're all slightly different when slow, but I see folks chewing up thousands of feet of runway (even accounting for our high DA here) they don't need to, pretty regularly in them while watching landings from the terminal buildings around here. It's semi-epidemic almost.

I suspect it's because the pilots simply don't feel comfortable flying them slower. But they fly slow really well. It's one of the "safety" features about a 182 that I like quite a bit. For a moderately fast XC airplane -- but no speed demon -- it'll land in an incredibly small place if the engine quits.

Nate,

"Severe injury"?? I think you are over reacting to make a point. The only "convenient" item in my list is being able to take off with 20 flaps. If you feel the need to discard my opinion it is your right to do so but I am no neophyte. Nothing of what you have posted has changed my mind in how I operate my Skylane and stand by everything I have shared with the group.

Kevin

P.S. Sorry Bonchie for the thread creep

 

[ytodd]

182Ps are decent airplanes. The only gripe I have about them is that the right window doesn't open, which can be a drag on a hot day. But you can taxi Piper-like with the door open.

My 182P came from the factory with left AND right windows that open.

 

[denverpilot]

Nate,

"Severe injury"?? I think you are over reacting to make a point. The only "convenient" item in my list is being able to take off with 20 flaps. If you feel the need to discard my opinion it is your right to do so but I am no neophyte. Nothing of what you have posted has changed my mind in how I operate my Skylane and stand by everything I have shared with the group.

Kevin

P.S. Sorry Bonchie for the thread creep

Sadly this is the standard response to facts and math applied to landing speed, because it surprises people who get away with it for a long time.

It's not an overreaction at all. My "injury" comment was in light of impact forces being squared by speed.

Any incident on or off the runway where a pilot has purposefully chosen to land at a speed higher than necessary, is a conscious decision to increase the impact forces on the occupants of the aircraft by the square of the increase in speed.

One can play with it (including deceleration by a "stretchy seat belt" which all seat belts do to some extent) here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr2.html

A quick pass through with my weight shows that I'll be decelerated with a force of 11 tons at 55 MPH and 16 tons at 65 MPH.

5 tons of extra deceleration force even accounting for a safety belt that deforms, is nothing to sneeze at! (The numbers for hitting the panel are WAY worse. Magnitudes worse. Be thankful if your belt deforms and stops your mass prior to impact with the panel.)

My point here is that the physics and the math don't suggest that landing any faster than necessary is safer, and nothing in your list suggested so either.

The possibility of stuck flaps is real in Cessnas but I'd take that possibility over hitting something even 10 MPH faster. The numbers don't add up for using stuck flaps as the excuse to land faster. I've had stuck flaps three times in hundreds and hundreds of landings.

Hundreds of landings (risk of impact) = big number.
Stuck flaps = Very small number.

I agree it's a VERY popular option, especially amongst 182 drivers, and one rarely looked at in light of physics and math.

Once the math is shown, the obvious risk is the speed, not the stuck flaps. Everything else on the list is simply pilot skill and practice.

If anything, a thread on 182s is the exact right place for this information, because the 182 is a very common airplane for people making this mathematical/physics mental mistake.

Once should simply be aware that the choice to land Flap 20 in a 182 is a choice to subject the occupants to roughly double the impact forces if something goes wrong with the landing. That's the roughed out numbers of it.

It's a conscious choice by the PIC that the passengers will never know about.

IMHO, CFIs who don't mention this, and show the math of exactly what this decision entails, are doing people an academic knowledge disservice.

It's much more (strangely) common in the 182 than other types. I suspect, like I said before, because the flaps are so effective that the pilot has to work harder to land slowly... when it's actually an advantage of the 182 over many other types with less effective flaps.

Doesn't add any value if it isn't utilized, however.

I can't change anyone's mind that isn't open to running the numbers. I can only point out the physics involved.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I have always landed 182's with full flaps.

Only time I use 20° of flaps is with strong crosswinds.

All other times get full flaps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[N53KL]

Nate,

Thank you for your insights. A couple of points if I may.

I have never stated I use 20 flaps because I think landing faster is safer or more controllable. Certainly landing at the slowest possible speed is desired. I did state that I use 20 flaps in my Skylane (full flaps = 40 degrees) in case of a go-around. At 20 degrees the pitch forces are easier to control and in the heat of the escape maneuver all you have to worry about is flying the airplane (no need to select flaps 20). BTW, in the Skylanes I have flown with full flaps = 30, I have and would use full flaps. Pitch forces in a go-around are not as dramatic.

You are totally correct that as pilots we manage risk. In my many years of flying I have never had a scenario where I ended up off a runway. I have done lots of go-arounds. I guess if I use your formula:
Go-arounds = Big number
Runway excursion = very small number

This all said, neither technique is wrong. It is simply looking at risk from different perspectives. I do practice full flap and no flap landings because I don't want to get rusty. I would urge everyone to at least try different configurations and make your own decision how you will manage risk.

Kevin

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nate,

Thank you for your insights. A couple of points if I may.

I have never stated I use 20 flaps because I think landing faster is safer or more controllable. Certainly landing at the slowest possible speed is desired. I did state that I use 20 flaps in my Skylane (full flaps = 40 degrees) in case of a go-around. At 20 degrees the pitch forces are easier to control and in the heat of the escape maneuver all you have to worry about is flying the airplane (no need to select flaps 20). BTW, in the Skylanes I have flown with full flaps = 30, I have and would use full flaps. Pitch forces in a go-around are not as dramatic.

You are totally correct that as pilots we manage risk. In my many years of flying I have never had a scenario where I ended up off a runway. I have done lots of go-arounds. I guess if I use your formula:
Go-arounds = Big number
Runway excursion = very small number

This all said, neither technique is wrong. It is simply looking at risk from different perspectives. I do practice full flap and no flap landings because I don't want to get rusty. I would urge everyone to at least try different configurations and make your own decision how you will manage risk.

Kevin

Why do you do so many go-arounds?

Other than training, I have never done one.

 

[Flyfeld]

Really? I have done many, if I am not happy with my approach it is safer to go around than to force a landing. Just my humble opinion.

 

[N53KL]

Really? I have done many, if I am not happy with my approach it is safer to go around than to force a landing. Just my humble opinion.

Excellent!

As to go-arounds, I have done a few in the Skylane over the 12 years I have owned her due to a variety of circumstances. The rest are, like Jose, in the training environment for work.

 

[Bonchie]

Of course the moment I get a plane, the weather becomes abject garbage for going on a week straight. If there's one way to end a drought, it's to buy a plane.

 

[N53KL]

I have definitely been in your shoes but weather always changes so you will get to fly your beautiful bird soon enough! Let us know your impressions and don't forget we always love pictures

 

[denverpilot]

Of course the moment I get a plane, the weather becomes abject garbage for going on a week straight. If there's one way to end a drought, it's to buy a plane.

LOL! So true.

I suspect that the week I plan to go back to doing some flying (got sucked back into a large project at work this week and last), the snow will blow back in.

Sunny all this week so far, of course... just in time to sit at a desk with three monitors pondering how not to screw up moving six company's email systems from one data center to a different data center.

 

[Csoechting]

I formerly owned a1975 182P, N9822E. Probably sat next to yours in the line. Great airplane. I sold it but still miss it.

 

[GMascelli]

Congrats!

I started out in a non-equity club of four people. It was a great intro to airplane ownership. I got to participate during annuals and learned plenty. We eventually made the jump to owning our own plane.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Really? I have done many, if I am not happy with my approach it is safer to go around than to force a landing. Just my humble opinion.

Uhhhh....... This may be obvious, but could the need for "many" go-around so be related to not using all the tools / flaps that Cessna provides?

Put in 40-flaps, and land the plane where you want it. I am not sure what would be causing you go-arounds.

I would venture the only reason I would likely do a go-around is a runway incursion type of thing.

I frequently fly into airports that are 1-way strips, with no go-around option, which is no big deal if you have those big old Cessna flaps, and know how to use them.

 

[Bonchie]

Put in 40-flaps, and land the plane where you want it. I am not sure what would be causing you go-arounds.

He may not even have 40 degrees of flaps.

And that poster never said anything about what flap settings he uses or even what plane he flies.

 

[JoseCuervo]

He may not even have 40 degrees of flaps.

And that poster never said anything about what flap settings he uses or even what plane he flies.

Why is he doing so many go-arounds?

 

[Bonchie]

Why is he doing so many go-arounds?

I don't know, but if he's got a 30 degree 182 (like mine) and is using flaps 20, that isn't going to cause more go arounds. It may not be safer to use flaps 20, but there's no argument that it makes it harder to land the plane.

Maybe he's just a really cautious guy? Some people are afraid to get it down when things aren't perfect I guess. You've probably got some pilots who won't even do a forward slip and would instead go around.

I personally haven't done an unplanned go around in a long time (go arounds for practice approaches and such I do often though). Just not a need to.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I don't know, but if he's got a 30 degree 182 (like mine) and is using flaps 20, that isn't going to cause more go arounds. It may not be safer to use flaps 20, but there's no argument that it makes it harder to land the plane.

Maybe he's just a really cautious guy? Some people are afraid to get it down when things aren't perfect I guess. You've probably got some pilots who won't even do a forward slip and would instead go around.

I personally haven't done an unplanned go around in a long time (go arounds for practice approaches and such I do often though). Just not a need to.

Doesn't 20° of flaps in a 182 just increase lift?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonchie]

Doesn't 20° of flaps in a 182 just increase lift?

182s are very nose heavy, especially with forward CG and nothing in the back. The extra elevator authority and slower sink makes it easier to land at flaps 20. The amount of trim needed at flaps 30 for landing also makes it an absolute bear to do a go around with. If you've never tried one, the forward pressure needed on a go around is pretty substantial. Like you might "need two hands" heavy.

If you go read some old insurance safety briefings, they cite how big of a problem hard landings were in 182s and specifically cite the issue with the heaviness of the nose and amount of trim needed. Some even specifically recommended not using full flaps.

Like I said, I'm not saying someone is right or wrong nor am I wanting to argue about it. Each PIC can decide for themselves and each CFI can teach it the way they want. I'm just saying it wasn't made up out of thin air.

 

[GeorgeC]

After you get used to flying solo, put a friend in the back seat and get used to that too, lest you descend through the flare, bounce mightily and go around.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I fly around solo, with a case of water in the baggage compartment. It makes it much easier to flare.


As for trimming, I trim constantly, and it doesn't take many spins on the trim to adjust the pressure. I can't see fear of trimming as a reason not to use all the flaps the good people at Cessna hung off those wings....


Adding lift, while trying to get a plane to quit flying seems counter-productive....

 

[N53KL]

Jose, if you mean the first 20 flaps create more lift than drag, you are correct. The next 10 or 20 degrees create more drag than lift.

To support Bonchie's post, here is a link to a Cessna 182 specific safety report put out by AOPA and USAIG (i think circa 2001): http://www.idahowingcap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/c-182safetyhighlights.pdf

Here is an excerpt about landing:

"Landing

Landing is the most accident-prone phase of flight for Cessna 182s and comparison aircraft, with 39 percent and 29 percent, respectively.
For the 182, landing hard was the leading transgression.The Skylane had considerably more accidents landing hard than did the comparison
group (12.7 percent of pilot-related C-182 accidents, compared to 5.7percent). (See Figure 10).

This may be due to the heavy feel of the elevator control, especially for pilots transitioning to the Skylane from lighter airplanes.
Substantial trim is required during landing, but don’t trim so much that you will not be able to handle a go-around.
Trimming for 75 knots will require you to hold back pressure during landing, but won’t require so much forward pressure on the controls
during a go-around.

Note: Improper speed control and a forward CG (full fuel and two occupants) results in bent firewalls being very common during 182
landings, especially for pilots transitioning from lighter airplanes."

 

[RotorDude]

Another vote for landing Skylanes with full (40 degrees) flaps (except in nasty crosswinds or turbulence, where you'd want 20-30 only). You just need to be proactive on the trim, as always.
And also not sure why people go around that often. For me it's extremely unusual, normally due to runway incursion or ATC screw-ups, which happen perhaps once or twice per decade. And when you do go around with 40 degrees flaps, yes, it's a lot of forward force initially, but within seconds you reduce it with combination of reduced flaps and forward trim if needed. It is a good idea to eat your Wheaties before flying anyway.
And yes, I am aware of the possibility of stuck flaps, but it's so rare that multiplying that probability with the extremely rare go-around results in the same general likelihood as being struck by a meteorite.

 

[mscard88]

Why does he do so many go-arounds? Because he's probably not comfortable and happy about his approach. He's the PIC and entitled to fly how he wants, go-arounds included. He probably doesn't fly go-arounds as much as y'all are thinking in your minds. I'm a full flap guy and teach that way but you don't have to use full flaps or partial flaps to land with accuracy. Think of this. If you have a flap failure (motor, etc) you'll be landing w/o flaps. I teach all combinations of flap use, including no flap. Look at the 182 POH, are there not speeds for no flap landings? Yes there are.

 

[N747JB]

My 182P came from the factory with left AND right windows that open.

Definitely an option, ours had it too, my 182Q doesn't and I wish it did!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, if you mean the first 20 flaps create more lift than drag, you are correct. The next 10 or 20 degrees create more drag than lift.

Assuming he is past the first 3 hours of "transition" to a 182, all the heavy forces on the nose should be common to him, and he should be able to trim those out.

Yes, that is what I meant, by landing at 20 degrees, you are adding lift to the wing. While trying to convince the wing to quit flying. A bit of a aerodynamic conflict.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Why does he do so many go-arounds? Because he's probably not comfortable and happy about his approach. He's the PIC and entitled to fly how he wants, go-arounds included. He probably doesn't fly go-arounds as much as y'all are thinking in your minds. I'm a full flap guy and teach that way but you don't have to use full flaps or partial flaps to land with accuracy. Think of this. If you have a flap failure (motor, etc) you'll be landing w/o flaps. I teach all combinations of flap use, including no flap. Look at the 182 POH, are there not speeds for no flap landings? Yes there are.

Exactly. He doesn't seem to be happy with his approaches. Ends up doing "lots" and "many" go-arounds, and, doesn't use the last 2 notches in his flaps.

I wonder if there is some connection??? Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason to have those big flaps on the Cessna wing?

I have had one "flap failure" on a 182. That is a low probability in my book, and, the failure was such that I couldn't get the flap motor to extend the flaps, so, I knew the issue prior to the approach.

I have had ZERO go-arounds in 182 once established on final. That is even lower probability in my experience.

When I multiply the (probability of flap failure x probability of go-around) = ain't something that would prevent me from using the flaps that Cessna gave me.

 

[Flyfeld]

Jeez guys you make it sound like I have a go around problem.... First I usually fly a rental 172 with some 182 time, I am considering purchasing a 182. My point with go arounds is I am not hesitant to do one if my approach isn't to my satisfaction and there is a chance of maybe side loading a gear even slightly during a cross wind landing. I am a low hour pilot and looking to improve my landings every chance I get. I have practiced full flaps to no flaps and my preference is full flaps as slow as possible. One of my airline pilot friends told me that there are occasions where airline pilots should do go arounds but they are very reluctant to do so.

 

[mscard88]

Jeez guys you make it sound like I have a go around problem.... First I usually fly a rental 172 with some 182 time, I am considering purchasing a 182. My point with go arounds is I am not hesitant to do one if my approach isn't to my satisfaction and there is a chance of maybe side loading a gear even slightly during a cross wind landing. I am a low hour pilot and looking to improve my landings every chance I get. I have practiced full flaps to no flaps and my preference is full flaps as slow as possible. One of my airline pilot friends told me that there are occasions where airline pilots should do go arounds but they are very reluctant to do so.

Don't pay the detractors any mind. You're doing what you should be doing, and if you feel a go-around is necessary do it and don't worry about what the detractors say on POA.

 

[denverpilot]

I haven't figured out why anyone would dog someone for a go-around. If you need/want to go-around, then just go.

Quite a few accidents are people trying to salvage garbage they should've just hit the gas, went around, and set up again.

 

[N53KL]

I haven't figured out why anyone would dog someone for a go-around. If you need/want to go-around, then just go.

Quite a few accidents are people trying to salvage garbage they should've just hit the gas, went around, and set up again.

I totally agree!

 

[JoseCuervo]

I haven't figured out why anyone would dog someone for a go-around. If you need/want to go-around, then just go.

Quite a few accidents are people trying to salvage garbage they should've just hit the gas, went around, and set up again.

Nobody is trying to "dog" anyone for go-arounds.

People are trying to understand why he is doing "lots" and "many" go-arounds in a 182. And if there is a connection with only using 20-flaps and being afraid to use full flaps.

Seems there could be a possible connection.

What is a "garbage" that they are trying to salvage?

Is "garbage" mean too high on downwind?

Is "garbage" mean too low on base?

Is "garbage" mean off centerline on final?

I always think of go-arounds being caused by a ground-based phenomena like another plane entering the runway, or, possibly a cow wandering on.

I am not sure what "garbage" would be that needs to be "salvaged".

 

[Flyfeld]

People are trying to understand why he is doing "lots" and "many" go-arounds in a 182. And if there is a connection with only using 20-flaps and being afraid to use full flaps.

Jose you are reading into my post, I never even mentioned flaps so there is no connection. I also clarified I usually fly a 172 with some 182 time. My point was simply to say one should not be hesitant to do a go around for safety sake. For the record I have not done a go around since last year. Hope thats ok...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose you are reading into my post, I never even mentioned flaps so there is no connection. I also clarified I usually fly a 172 with some 182 time. My point was simply to say one should not be hesitant to do a go around for safety sake. For the record I have not done a go around since last year. Hope thats ok...

Should one be hesitant to use full flaps due to the possibility of a go-around?

 

[Flyfeld]

Should one be hesitant to use full flaps due to the possibility of a go-around?

No

 

[N53KL]

Should one be hesitant to use full flaps due to the possibility of a go-around?

Nor should you be hesitant to select whatever flap configuration suits you. Honestly Jose, you seem to be looking for a fight. I am the one who prefers to use 20 flaps vice 40 degrees and ONE of the reasons was the go-around. Please aim your condescending comments at me.

 

[mscard88]

Honestly Jose, you seem to be looking for a fight. I am the one who prefers to use 20 flaps vice 40 degrees and ONE of the reasons was the go-around. Please aim your condescending comments at me.

He's trolls a lot and does the above for sure.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nor should you be hesitant to select whatever flap configuration suits you. Honestly Jose, you seem to be looking for a fight. I am the one who prefers to use 20 flaps vice 40 degrees and ONE of the reasons was the go-around. Please aim your condescending comments at me.

I was just trying to understand why people don't use all the tools available.


And don't take it personally. Are usually post for my phone, so I don't really pay attention to who the poster is, I only replied to the content and the discussion.

I try to keep personalities out of it. I suggest you do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoseCuervo]

He's trolls a lot and does the above for sure.

Who are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk